Was the Church Named as the "Iglesia ni Cristo" in Scripture?

One of the most unbiblical doctrines of the Iglesia ni Manalo aside from the denying of Christ's deity, the teaching that only the council may interpret the Scriptures, that the Church apostasized and was restored in 1914, and that the INC is the "reinstatement of the true Church" because the Church has apostasized. But was it named the Iglesia ni Cristo? So let's try to think about their verses misapplied to make it look like the Philippines as the source of this blessing and how it contradicts when taken in context:
Isaiah 24:15- Wherefore glorify ye the LORD in the fires, even the name of the LORD God of Israel in the isles of the sea.
Isaiah 43:5- Fear not: for I Am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west;

It does make sense when taken OUT OF CONTEXT (which is no wonder why interpretation is left to the Council of Manalo just as Scriptural interpretation of Rome is left to the Council of Trent). They are trying to defend the name "Iglesia ni Cristo" which is Tagalog for "Church for Christ" as the true name of the restored "Church". Which again, like the Roman Catholic misuses the word Catholes (Greek for Universal) to justify their origins, the same goes for the Iglesia ni Manalo member in misusing "Church of Christ".

Looking at the isles of the sea argument it is NOT only the Philippines. I mean, is the Philippines the ONLY isles of the sea? What about Indonesia? What about Hawaii? What about Japan? What about Taiwan? What about Malaysia? What about Singapore? What about East Timor? What about Borneo? What about every other island on the sea? Did God forget about them? Simply the isles of the sea could not limit itself to the Philippines!

John Gill a British Baptist minister's expository of the Bible also says about the isles of the sea as, "Whose name (God) will now be known not in Israel or among the Jews only but in ALL distant and foreign countries, which are sometimes meant by the Isles of the Sea and in ALL islands even the most remote who have reason to join with them on the continent to glorify God, whose name will now be great in all the earth." No wonder the INC is very wary of Evangelicals and Baptists huh? In fact, I'm thinking they are warier of Baptists and Evangelicals than they are of rival cults like Romanism or Mormonism to name a few.

John Gill makes more sense because the context of Isaiah 21 is simple- it's about the WHOLE EARTH and NOT JUST THE PHILIPPINES. The Philippines is a Gentile country. They were not from the lineage of Abraham. However, any Filipino who becomes a Christian becomes part of the Covenant of Abraham.

For Isaiah 43:5 the context is Jacob or ISRAEL. Jacob was redeemed by God and NOT King Philip whom the Philippines is named after. Israel belongs to the East nations because it is part of Asia. In the Book of Acts, remember the Gospel started to spread first in Asia (the East). Matthew 8:11 has the coming from the east and west and sit down with ABRAHAM AND ISAAC AND JACOB. Again Jacob is NOT the founder of the Philippines. Although Filipinos came from Shem's line but they are definitely Gentiles or non-Jewish. And we read from verses 6 that it's the north and the south and the east and west. Obviously, the Gospel started in Israel but the evangelization did not stop there. The Apostle Paul preached from Asia Minor (east) to Europe (west) which is obvious that the Gospel was spread first from the East (Israel) to the western world.

Another verse that can be misinterpreted is Romans 16:16 which says, "Salute one another with a holy kiss, the churches of Christ salute you." But really, was the New Testament written in Tagalog? It was written in GREEK and not in Tagalog. I know the Greek for Church is Ekklesia where the word Iglesia was derived from, but as said notice, the statement, "The CHURCHES of Christ salute you" NOT "the church of Christ salutes you." which is again taken out of context. Also take note that the Tagalog language did not come to full existence until the Spanish colonization. Ancient Filipino language that was born at the Tower of Babel was different from the modern Filipino language - it was in baybayin and written in alibata.

Again with ALL the languages, you might end up getting some of these names for the term churches of Christ among the Gentile words:
  • In Greek it means "Ecclesiastas Christi"
  • In Mandarin it means "Ji Du (Christ) de Jiao Tang"
  • In Italian it means "Christ di Chiesa"
  • In Spanish it means "Iglesia de Cristo"

With ALL the languages that Paul went from one to another it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Church to be officially called "Iglesia ni Cristo" everywhere. Instead, it was called a church of Christ in DIFFERENT languages. On the other hand, the Iglesia ni Manalo insists that the true name must be "Iglesia ni Cristo" which is nothing more than hocus pocus interpretation. Plus the word Iglesia is Spanish, derived from the Greek Ecclesia. So really, where did Felix Manalo get all his nonsense that the true Church must be called as the official name, in Tagalog and so on? It's just a BAD STUDY OF SCRIPTURE! No wonder they hate the Baptists and Evangelicals a lot because these groups are pioneers in EXPOSITORY PREACHING!

Obviously the Iglesia ni Manalo is just another harlot church that takes Scriptures out of context to justify its otherwise non-existent legitimacy to the world. Just as Romanism tries to justify itself to be existent 2,000 years ago with Matthew 16:16-18 and later claimed the headquarters moved to Rome (which was around 300 A.D.), the same for the Iglesia ni Manalo as a harlot church.