WAS BETHLEHEM BIRTH PROPHESIED?
evangelists who believed that Jesus was the savior son of god, but who had no knowledge
of his biography, used scripture as a blueprint to invent Jesus' life details.
One passage in particular, Micah 5:2, created an expectation that the Jewish messiah
would be born in Bethlehem.
The unknown gospel-writers, believing that Jesus was the son of god ― the
Invisible Man In The Sky ― and
that he must have fulfilled the messianic events in the Hebrew bible, wove the Bethlehem
birth story into their tale of Jesus' life. However, these unknown authors had no idea what the Hebrew bible "prophecy"
verse was really about.
Matthew's Bethlehem Story:
Matthew said that "the prophet" predicted the birthplace of the
savior would be the town of Bethlehem.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea....Herod
the king gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he
demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In
Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the
land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee
shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel." (Matthew 2:1-6)
Verses written by Micah apparently caused Matthew to believe that Jesus' birth
was predicted to occur in the town of Bethlehem.
Evidence shows that Micah was not referring to a town, but a person, the head of
a clan from whom would come a great leader who would save his people from the
Here are the Micah
gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us:
they shall smite the judge of Israel
with a rod upon the cheek. But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the
thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to
be ruler in Israel,
whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting....And he shall
stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the
LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of
the earth. And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into
our land....and they shall waste the land
of Assyria with the
Bethlehem Was a Person:
The evidence below suggests that "Bethlehem"
here actually referred to a person, not a place, and his ancestor's name was
[are] the sons of Israel;
Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Issachar, and
Zebulun,[snip many names]...These were the sons of Caleb
the son of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah; Shobal the father of
Kirjathjearim, Salma the father of Bethlehem, Hareph the father of
(1 Chronicles 2:1-51)
"Bethlehem" spoken of in Micah 5:2 was the "Bethlehem [of the house of] Ephratah"
spoken of in Chronicles above. Further evidence that Micah was referring to a
person, not a town, comes from the editors of the NIV, RSV, and NAB. Here is
how the NIV translates that Micah verse:
though you are small among the clans (or, rulers) of Judah, out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel..." (Micah 5:2)
The above verse
says that Micah did not mean that any savior would be born a town called Bethlehem, but that the Jewish
messiah (also fictitious) would come from either the clan of Ephratah, or from
the man called Bethlehem, Ephratah.
Micah refers to the
"thousands of Judah" (KJV), which Matthew may have thought meant
"thousands of towns in Judah."
Is it possible there were thousands of towns in Judah in 800 BCE? NO! To justify
the use of the word "thousands" to describe anything, how many
would there have to be? Three thousand or more? There are only about 50-100
towns or villages in that area today. Is it believable that there were thirty
times as many towns and villages in Judah 2,800 years ago, when the
population of that region was vastly less than it is today? Or is it more
likely that Micah was referring to clans and not towns?
Doesn't Refer to a Distant Future Savior
disputing Matthew's apparent claim that Micah was referring to the town of Bethlehem is not the most
convincing; the case against Matthew gets far worse, below.
Micah is talking
about a person who will save them from the Assyrians. Nineveh, the capital of Assyria,
was destroyed and Assyrian power ceased to exist 606 years before Jesus was born.
Thus, if the savior prophesied by Micah really did come, he would
have to have done so six centuries before the birth of Jesus.
Also, as any
schoolchild knows, the adversaries of the Jews at the time of Jesus were not
the Assyrians. It was the Romans, not the Assyrians, who ruled the land of Judah during the lifetime of Jesus. Even
if Micah's prophecy had referred to a savior freeing Israel from the Romans, it could
not have applied to Jesus, who never lifted a finger against them.
It should be
evident to all, but the religiholics, that Micah was not prophesying that a messiah
would be born in a town called Bethlehem. Additionally, the hero in Micah could
not have been Jesus since Micah's events were to occur 600+ years before the Jesus
story was conceived. The Micah story involved a savior/hero who would vanquish Assyrians ―
not the Romans. One more time; the "Bethlehem"
in Micah is not a town, but the person, Bethlehem Ephratah.
what a tangled web we weave, once we practice to deceive!" Sir Walter
Citation of Hebrew scripture and
sources in articles or analyses is not in any way an acceptance, approval or
validation of the Jewish religion, its works or scriptures. The Hebrew bible, like the Christian New Testament and Muslim
Qur'an, is fictitious; From a 6-day creation of the universe; a cunning,
walking, talking snake; big fish tales; world flood and an "Invisible Man
in the Sky" ― it is all fiction, a bold
sham perpetrated on mankind.