It has been a lingering concept amongst the INC that Felix Manalo is the fulfillment of many prophecies in the bible and one of such is about the ravenous bird from the east. They quote this verse:
Isaiah 46:10-13
[10]Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
[11]Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.
[12]Hearken unto me, ye stouthearted, that are far from righteousness:
[13]I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.
The reason they believed this to be so is bec of scholarly testament from one of the bible translators as it say:
“… Again, kedem is used in a strictly geographical sense to describe a spot or country immediately before another in an easterly direction; hence it occurs in such passages as Gen. ii:8, 11:24, xi:2, xiii.11, xxv:6 and hence the subsequent application of the term, as a proper name (Gen. xxv. 6, eastward, unto the land of kedem), to the lands lying immediately eastward of Palestine, viz. Arabia, Mesopotamia, andBabylonia; on the other hand mizrach is used of the far east with a less definite signification (Is. Xli:2, 25, xliii, 5, xlvi, 11).”[William Smith, LL. D., Smith Bible Dictionary. (N.J.: Fleming A. Ravell, 1976, p. 153.]
So they were saying, the hebrew word used was mizrach and by adopting smith’s commentary, they have derived from it the term far east to have been denoted in Isaiah 46:11, but how reliable is the commentary?
Look at the commentary. It admitted that far east has less definite signification, meaning, it is not a certain derivative but on a less degree, therefore, its not certain.
Or if ever it was, no evidence whatsoever was produced to verify its certainty. Bec in matters of evidence, strongs numbers published close to 1890 has no mention of far east but simply east as it say:
Hebrew: מזרח
Transliteration: mizrâch
Pronunciation: miz-rawkh’
Definition: From H2224; {sunrise} that {is} the east: – east ({side} {-ward}) (sun-) rising (of the sun).
Therefore, nothing is certain to have far east as a contextual fact, bec what if it was simply, east? So in what certain note can we derive far east to have been the correct term used?
None so far.
Whereas in context, it is clearly established who this ravenous bird is. Firstly, we could assess that the ravenous bird spoken of has this functional necessity: he would execute god’s counsel. What does it mean by counsel?
Jeremiah 23:22
[22]But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings.
Counsel simply means the words of god that causes sinners to repent, meaning, these are words of salvation. As much so as stated by god, that the ravenous bird must execute god’s counsel.
Counsel in hebrew:
Hebrew: עצה
Transliteration: ‛êtsâh
Pronunciation: ay-tsaw’
Definition: From H3289; advice; by implication plan; also prudence: – {advice} {advisement} counsel ({[-lor]}) purpose.
So on factual reality, it could be counsel or it could merely be a plan. So which counsel or plan are these?
Clearly, the context emphasize that this counsel or plan were on these specifics:
13]I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.
The counsel or plan of god was for zion (or jerusalem) to have salvation in its midst. This counsel or plan must be executed by the ravenous bird.
The question is, who fulfilled this reality? Who would establish salvation in jerusalem?
It cannot be felix manalo as he never preached in jerusalem. It is jesus christ.
Luke 1:67-79
[67]And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
[68]Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
[69]And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
[70]As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
[71]That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
[72]To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
[73]The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
[74]That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
[75]In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
[76]And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
[77]To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
[78]Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,
[79]To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.
Matthew 1:21
[21]And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
How could have felix manalo established salvation in jerusalem when he had never preached in jerusalem?
He never did. Even if his teachings through INC would be propagated in jerusalem, still, these are not his own teachings but its credit is to jesus christ as it say:
Colossians 2:8
[8]Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Belief is accounted on christ and not on felix manalo, therefore christ must have been the preacher, the recipient of our belief.
John 14:1
[1]Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
John 3:18
[18]He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
1 Peter 2:25
[25]For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
Therefore, the one who established salvation in jerusalem is christ being the preacher in all generation:
Ephesians 3:21
[21]Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
In context he is appropriate to be referred to as the ravenous bird from the east and not felix manalo.
How come?
The ravenous bird established salvation in jerusalem whereas Manalo did not.
Lastly, it say the ravenous bird came from a far country. Country in hebrew is eretz which means land, so its rather a far land possibly within israel wherein the east star of jesus was seen therefore logically, jesus came from a far land in the east of jerusalem. It doesnt mean a country outside israel, bec it could be within its borders.
I had a debate regarding this and this is my comment:
My stand is formidable. Zion cannot be the church bec even if it say in romans, i lay in sion a stumbling rock of offense, neither was it emphatic on the church bec nothing confirmed it as the church, bec it could be literal jerusalem wherein jesus as the rock was lain, so nothing is confirmatory in that essence,
And yes, it said, far country, but if we consult hebrew it could also mean A FAR LAND, as confirmatory of jesus journey from bethlehem to nazareth wherein his east star was seen, therefore he came from the east after coming from bethlehem particularly a far land within israel.
And mizrach is less definite in terms of far east as smith commentary stated but is definite to mean east as synonymous to kedem, as stated by strongs numbers dictionary.
So nothing of a far east is ever been certain and definite, so it scrap your sole basis to mean philippines and manalo…
Why do i think it is jesus referred to as the ravenous bird?
Bec the ravenous bird establish salvation in zion, which i believe is the literal jerusalem…
And if ever it speaks of the church, still it was jesus who established salvation being the author of salvation as paul claimed
Hebrews 12:2
[2]Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Moreover, another comment:
REBUTTAL
My opponent tries to justify manalo as the ravenous bird by trying to discredit jesus. He quoted a verse which says:
TO THE LAW AND TESTIMONY, IF HE DONT SPEAK ACCORDING TO THIS WORD, THEN ITS BEC THERE IS NO LIGHT IN HIM.
He desperately tries to imply that for a servant of god to have light he must have spoken about generally all of the law and testimony, thus inclusive of the law of moses, but is that really so?
Jesus abrogated the law as it say in luke 16:16 THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN,
Therefore, the law and the testimony spoken of were speaking about the integral bible excluding what is abrogated as it say:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
[16]All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17]That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Bec if it speaks about preaching the whole OT testimonies as specific of its integral form, then how could that be possible,
Nowhere did jesus or the apostles have spoken about the ravenous bird, or the other prophecies whether speaking about jesus or not, therefore, as by my opponent’s interpretation then they have no light.
Ill quote a verse and see for yourself if this has been preached by jesus:
Daniel 2:31-37
[31]Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.
[32]This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,
[33]His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.
[34]Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.
[35]Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.
[36]This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.
[37]Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
Jesus never preached this so does he have light when this is also a testimony as said: if they speak not according to this word then they have no light in them?
Do you think you have interpreted this correctly?
NOTHING IS SAID ABOUT TESTIFYING ABOUT ONESELF FROM THE TESTIMONY AND LAW…
If it is not about preaching generally all specific testimonies then how would you account for jesus to speak specifically everything about all prophecies on him?
If you still insist, where in the testimonies did it account for felix manalo as the ravenous bird, when nothing in the testimony have it spoken anything about him?
Let me repost your basis:
THE LAW AND TESTIMONY, IF THEY SPEAK NOT ACCORDING TO THIS WORD, ITS BEC THEY HAVE NO LIGHT IN THEM…
So where in the testimony, firstly, manalo as the ravenous bird,
Secondly, zion as the church of god?
Bec what the testimony said was: the ravenous bird must establish salvation in zion. Therefore, for you to prove anything, you must prove first that zion speaks certainly of any other city than literal jerusalem.
If nothing is certain, then you know, other possibilities could point to other personalities as cyrus and jesus christ, which bro eli has tried to relay…
Lastly,
CONCLUSION
As far as the debate goes, clearly nothing has been placed in a rather certain stand but only the testimony which says, the ravenous bird will establish salvation in zion. It therefore bespeaks the rather weak argument of my opponent to have used ROM 9:33 “I LAY IN ZION A STUMBLINGSTONE AND ROCK OF OFFENSE” to express that zion is the church when nowhere in it, even the slightest notion, is emphatic of a church. It is rather on the notion that zion is jerusalem that is overwhelming and outstanding.
Nothing is certain in my opponent’s argument thus he failed to prove his stand quite credibly.
Therefore if nothing is certain then it open possibilities for other personalities such as cyrus and jesus christ as what bro eli has tried to relay and misunderstood as contradiction when he was just presenting mere possibilities.
On second point, the star of jesus was seen in the east as indicator to where he is. If the east star is seen in the east, how could they have located jesus if he was in the south or north through the star? Logically, it could only be possible if he was in the east.
Im not saying, bethlehem is in the east, what im saying was, after coming from bethlehem jesus went east before he went home to nazareth. Still, he came from the east.
This is the core of the argument he lack the adequacy to ever fortify: zion is the church. Nothing of a certain proof validated his argument thus it stands zion is jerusalem which if validated would rejects the concept that manalo is the ravenous bird having not preached in jerusalem,
Zion is jerusalem…
Micah 4:2
[2]And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
Having that as premise, then zion is clearly jerusalem whereas nowhere did it directly referred to a church, much so a church the pasugo claimed was not a member of the 1st century church yet claiming rom 16:16, the early church to be referring to them. Ridiculous but that is not the point.
So in matters of contradiction and curse, have our group, MCGI, preached otherwise than the apostles to have merit a curse?
No. We simply were giving possibilities that it could be cyrus or jesus beside the fact that the apostles never tackled a single bit about the ravenous bird.
So are we cursed?
Conclusion: Zion could only refer to jerusalem and felix having not preached there rejects him as being the ravenous bird from the east.
A BEAUTIFUL MIND 