Felix Manalo the5th angel
His message is no different than the 7th day Adventists 3rd angel's message of which he probably was influenced by when he studied with them. Rev 7:2: "Then I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God. And he cried with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea." Manalo claimed to be this angel.
How do they apply this prophecy to a Manalo? They claim the angel in this context means a human messenger. Angels do not preach the gospel so this must refer to a man. But we do find an angel preaching the gospel in Revelation from mid heaven Rev.14:6 "Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth-- to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people." I don't think he's using a plane! Angels are creatures that are spirits that dwell in heaven and do God's bidding to mankind on earth.
Rev.7:1: "After these things" Which they believe is the war described in Rev.6:12-15 which is the first world war, then Rev.7:1 there are four angels mentioned which are they interpreted as men.
Rev 7:2-3: "Then I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God. And he cried with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea, saying, "Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads." Who are these other 4 angels who hold back the wind (war) they are:
1. Lloyd George of great Britain
2. Clemenceau of France
3. Orlando of Italy
4. Wilson of the U.S..
Manalo was already preaching "the gospel" in the Philippines so by deduction he is identified as the 5th angel to arise out of the east. Never mind that these other men were not believers, or part of Iglesias church. All this makes a very convoluted reasoning to prove something they think is relevant to them from the Bible. The logic of this claim completely fails when in v.2 states "He cried out to the other 4 angels "their is absolutely no evidence he (Manalo) communicated to these other 4 who are called by them angels. The U.S. did not enter the war until 1917 but Manalo points to the date of 1914 as crucial for the fulfillment, this would mean if he spoke to any it was 3 not 4. Not only this, but they participate in sealing 144,000 Jews for the tribulation. Where and when is the tribulation? Did these 4 men do this? Did Manalo do this, I dont think so. Since when are sinful men called angels; angels that come from heaven?
Angels spoken of in the end of time in the book of Revelation come from heaven. Even if it says from the east it still has its origin in heaven Rev.10:1 "I saw still another mighty angel coming down from heaven, clothed with a cloud. And a rainbow was on his head, his face was like the sun, and his feet like pillars of fire."
Far east or East
Acts 2:39 for the promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are a far off "this is a promise to Israelites and their generation Manalo interpreted this to mean gentiles but they came up with no explanation how Israelites become Gentiles. But they insist this is their members in the Philippine's. (read also Acts 2:22.)
There are 48 biblical verses that employ the term a far off and 30 verses that use far off but none of them refer to the Philippines or Far East. Genesis 22:4 and 37.18; Exodus 2:4, 20:18, 20:21, 24:I and 33:7. Jeremiah 23.23, 31:10, 46:27 and 51:50. A far also found in Mark 5:6,11:13,14:54 and 15:40. Luke l6:23, 17:12, 18:13, 22.54, 23:49 and in the book of Revelation, chapter 18 :10, 15 and 17 among others. This is more than enough to show that afar off has been misinterpreted by the INC. In the same way a far off (in the distance) is referred to in Luke 23.49 "And all his acquaintance and women that followed him from Galilee stood afar off beholding these things." This goes right along with Peters proclamation to the children of Israel in Acts 2:39 "the promise is for you and your children and all who are a far off, for whom the Lord our God will call."
The only thing that is afar off is their unique interpretation of this passage.
A pillar of the Iglesia belief is that its emergence in the Philippines was prophesied in the Bible. This idea is supposedly found in Isaiah 43:5-6, which states: "Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your offspring from the east, and from the west I will gather you; I will say to the north, 'Give up,' and the south, 'Do not withhold; bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth.'
Iglesia argues that in this verse Isaiah is referring to the "far east" and that this is the place where the "Church of Christ" will emerge in the last days. This point is constantly repeated in Iglesia literature: "The prophecy stated that God's children shall come from the far east" (Pasugo, March 1975, p.6).
But the phrase "far east" is not in the text. In fact, in the Tagalog (Philipino) translation, as well as in the original Hebrew, the words "far" and "east" are not even found in the same verse, yet the Iglesia recklessly combine the two verses to translate "far east." Using this fallacious interpretation Iglesia goes on to claim that the far east refers specifically to the Philippines. Who authorized Mofatt to add the word far to east, when this phrase does not appear in the Greek scripture, Isaiah the prophet only uses East. This is clearly referring to Israel and their being brought back from their captivity into the land.
Consistently and logic seem to be missing on this. While they claim the word Trinity is not found in the Bible an will argue incessantly about this fact neither is the Island Philippine's, but no one would deny that it does exist!
Iglesia is so determined to convince its followers of this "fact," that it quotes Isaiah 43:5 from an inexact paraphrase by James Moffat which reads: "From the far east will I bring your offspring." Citing this mistranslation, one Iglesia work states: "Is it not clear that you can read the words 'far east'? Clear! Why does not the Tagalog Bible show them? That is not our fault, but that of those who translated the Tagalog Bible from English--the Catholics and Protestant" (Isang Pagbubunyag Sa Iglesia ni Cristo, 1964:131). The Iglesia thus accuses everyone else of mistranslating the Bible, when in fact it is Iglesia who is taking great liberties with the original language. They use the translations that have infamously been used by other cults such as Lamsas and Moffatts. Prior to 1923 the Moffat translation was the first to mention this term and is the only one that does, none did before 1923 nor after. This could only be true if the Tagalog version used by INC was translated from Moffatt's but it was not, so their claim of wrong translation is false.
Their "far east" argument is that the Philippines is the geographic center of the Far East, so the restored Church would come from the Philippines. The problem is that Philippine islands are not the geographic center of the Far East. The Far East includes China, Korea, Japan, East Siberia, the Indo-Chinese countries, and the Philippines. On a map of the Far East the Philippines is on the lower right hand corner. The geographic center would be in Southern China, not in the Philippines. Not only this but the question is who is God calling, its not anyone else but Israel. Certainly Philipino'sís are not Semetic or Israel. Isaiah is speaking of a regathering into their homeland "I will bring your descendants." Are Philipinos' descendent s of Israel? no they are not!
They also teach God's messenger will be called from a far country in the east from the Islands of the sea using Isa.46:11: "Calling a ravenous bird from the east. A man who executes my counsel from a far country."
In Iglesia'ss doctrine Manalo is that bird who is to preach the true gospel and snatch the true believers as a ravenous bird from the false religions. If one looks at the way birds are used in scripture especially one of prey it is almost unanimously of Satan (Mt.13, Mk.4). As far as executing God's counsel; because one does God's purpose does not mean he is God's messenger. Look a Pharaoh that was raised up to accomplish His purpose. Also Joel 2 in it they are called God's army and yet they bring judgment on God's people, and are destroyed by God in the end.
5861 `ayit-a bird of prey, a swooper (Brown driver briggs ) to scream, to shriek; (Qal) to scream 2) to dart greedily, to swoop upon, to rush upon; (Qal) to dart greedily
Isaiah 46:11 refers to Cyrus as "a ravenous bird (called) from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country"; "probably in allusion to the fact that the griffon was the emblem of Persia; and embroidered on its standard" (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, I, 632) This is correct as far as history goes. Cyrus was used to have the Jews return from Babylon and although he is called Gods shepherd, (Isa. 45) he is not a good shepherd even though he was used by God. He allows Israel to rebuild the temple showing this all already took place in 539-536 B.C.. (compare Isa.46:11 and 44:28, 45:1)
This needs no comment and is self evident: if they want to wear this shoe it certainly fits.