Luke's Record Of The Gift Of The Holy Spirit

(1) Although Acts 2:36-41 seems to make it grammatically clear that the audience had their sins
forgiven when they were convicted in their hearts and placed their
faith in
Jesus, but did they         receive (the gift of) the Holy Spirit before,
during or after being
water baptised (in the name of Jesus)? The terms ‘for the forgiveness
of sins’ is in a different grammatical clause to ‘receive the gift
of the Holy Spirit’. Also, there's no mention of the laying on of hands
at this 3000 individual immersing event as you'll see later on in Acts
that (the gift of) the Holy Spirit was also received
through the laying on of hands. Only now do I understand why the Church
of Christ denomination I was a part of doesn't practice the laying on
of hands: They believe (a) that Paul of Tarsus was
the last apostle, (b) that only the apostles laid hands on people for
receiving the 'miraculous' gifts of the Holy Spirit and (c) that only
the apostles could pass these 'miraculous'
gifts onto other non-apostles (through the laying on of their hands).
What a puzzle!

(2) Since Ephesians 4:4-6 states, amongst other 'ones', that there’s one baptism for all believers,
then is the baptism with the Holy Spirit (promised to the apostles in
Acts 1:4,5) the same baptism as the one in the name
of
Jesus or is it another manifestation of the one and same
baptism, yet still
operational today? Since Jesus and the Holy Spirit are part of the same Godhead, then that could signify another
manifestation of that same baptism. The
many texts in Acts refers to a ‘pouring out’, a ‘filling
with’, a ‘coming upon’ etc. of the Holy Spirit. These were seen with (Acts 8:14-24 and Acts 19:1-7) and without (Acts
2:1-4 and Acts 10:44-48)  the
laying on of the hands of apostles. One pattern amongst these 4 events
is that those who received the laying on of hands had it done after
water baptism (in the name of Jesus) while those who didn't receive the
laying on of hands actually received (the gift of) the Holy Spirit before water baptism (in the name of Jesus). These various
texts don't distinguish between 'receiving the Holy
Spirit’ nor 'receiving the gift of the Holy
Spirit’ either.

(3) Ananias, who was not recorded as being an apostle, laid his hands on Saul and told him that the Lord had
(a) commissioned him, would (b) heal his blindness and
he'd be (c) ‘filled with the Holy Spirit’,
although Saul was subsequently (d) baptised in the name of
Jesus immediately afterwards (Acts
9:10-18). There are other examples of non-apostles laying hands on others such as the body of elders who laid hands on
Timothy for a gift Paul urged to be 'fanned into flame'. One can only
assume that the apostles themselves
had to be baptised in the name of Jesus (as well) for
the events surrounding Acts 2:1-47 to make any sense at all.
Yet nothing's mentioned there about the 12 apostles themselves being
baptised in water nor having their hands laid on by others
either. Another thing, you told me that the 'laying on of hands' was
for (a) healing, (b) commissioning for a task e.g.
apostleship, (c) imparting a spiritual gift and (d) receiving
(the gift of) the Holy Spirit as well. Just to ask you again please: Was
there anything else you'd said the 'laying
on of hands' was also practised for?
Hebrews 6:1-3 mentions it as one of the elementary
teachings, as we know, yet it has been ignored by so many
denominations, including the one I was a part of.