"But thou, Beth-lehem 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." ~ (OT | Micah 5:2)

Perhaps the most pointed thing to first notice here is just how the Bible was produced and edited from the perspective of the 'Jews' whose 'stick' it is. From a Jewish perspective all the rest of Israel had gone from them and what was left was but a very small remnant of all but the Jews and perhaps Benjamin. And David had wrestled the Kingdom from Saul. And further David has chossen his 'bloodline' tribe Judah according to his descent from Boaz rather than Mahlon and the Ephrathite house of Elimelech and Naomi, whose son the people of the book of Ruth pronounced him to be as having been raised up as seed unto the dead.

So now the pointed point is this. Where possible the Bible under the Jews 'edited' the Bible according to their very 'Jewish' perspective that they had prevailed over all the other tribes as only the Kingdom of Judah had prevailed over all the other tribes, including Joseph/Ephraim, even though Judah's king was David. So they edited all 'lands' they pocessed as bing those lands of Judah as all the other tribes were gone from them. Bethlehem became Bethlehem-Judah and not Bethlehem-Ephratah 'except here in the words of the Prophet Micah, were it was not changed from being that land of 'Ephratah' rather than the land of the Ephrathite family of Mahlon, Chilion and their father Elimelech, as that is whose inheritance was preserved in Israel for Boaz but was surogate father to so raise up seed to the dead Mahlon, the first husband of Ruth.

And that is why the nearer kinsman, likely also and Ephrathite rather than of the tribe of Judah as was the next living kinsman by but maternal kinship. And why is it only in the prophetic understood worlds of the prophet and not of an editor of the scriptures that it is clearly stated to be that land of Ephratah? That is because both Ephraim and Benjamin had held lands of inheritance near unto the tomb of their mother Rachel near unto Ephrath Bethlehem. And that is the pointed point. Joseph and Mary had gone to Bethlehem Ephratah to be taxed and so that Jesus/Jehoshua would be born in that manger at the inn where no longer was there a room available. That is at Bethlehem Ephratah that he was born, the lands of the family's inheritance was the lamb of God born in a manger there, which lands had been preserved in Israel unto Obed the surrogate son raised up to the dead upon his proper, legal, and by the laws of God to the dead that they and their inheritance would not be forgotten in Israel as stated by Boaz in the 4^th chapter of the book of Ruth.

David's birth place was at Bethlehem Ephratah, not the edited by the perspective of the Jews of Bethlehem-Judah. It was that land of Elimelech, Chilion and Mahlon that was preserved in Israel, bought by Boaz so it would remain to be of the 'son of Naoni, Elimelech and their son Mahlon to Obed and thence to that stated Ephrathite, Jesse, the father of David. Bethlehem where Jesus was born was at that land inheritance of his legal and rightful ancient parentage under Bible Law, the Ephrathites, meaning Ephraimites, from the Ephraimite family of Elimelech, Chilion and Mahlon.

In short, Jehoshua, Jesus's legal Biblical Law linage inheritance is of that of the Ephraithites, Jesse, Obed, Mahlon, Chilion and Elimelech so properly represented by the prophet's voice of beloning to the lands of Bethlehem-Ephratah not that which was claimed by the Jews after all of Israel has been 'lost' to them. And all that has been placed in this text is again there to support and further confirm it to be so from Rachel weeping for her children as recorded by Jeremiah and pointed out by the Apostle Matthew in his second chapter of his gospel as so bring Rachel who weap for her children of the slaughter of King Herod. And to that fact that the 'birthright blessing' remained unto Joseph through his son Ephraim as recorded in 1 Chonicals 5:1-2, where Judah claimed to have revaield and cited David's geneology from Boaz and Judah rather than from the dead, who Boaz had so raised up unto Mahlon and the family of Elimelech so that that heritege would NOT BE LOST in Israel according to the words of Boaz. And it is why 'such a one' would not marry Ruth, as he would not spend his money to preserve such to one who would not be considered his own son, but rather the son of Mahlon as recorded in Ruth chapter 4.

So again, now what do we have? Yes Jesus/Jehoshua, Jehovah who saves and delivers Israel, is none other than that Ephrathite of Bethlehem Ephratah. And it is he and his 'near' kinsmen of Ephraim, who have been charged as that tribe in Israel responsible for fulfilling the charge of providing the way unto salvation of the Holy Ordinances of the priesthood here during the latter-days unto the nations of the earth in the name of Father Abraham here in the 'land of Joseph' the Americas of where it was that Adam dwelt from the beginning. Interesting.

From the start, when Jesus first cleansed the temple at the beginning of his ministry according to the Gospel of John, 'The Jews' were set against him and did seek to kill him.

That Isrealite Hebrew of Galilee, the son of David, being distinguished from the 'Jews of Jerusalem' (though all 'known' Israelites of this date were refered to as 'Jews' whether their ancestry was from Judah or from another son of Jacob). It would have made Jesus King of Isreal because of his deallings about the lands of the Sea of Galilee. In this respect, it ought to be established that the cliquish 'Jews' of Jerusalem were quite particular and would even tend to discriminate against the Hebrews of Israel as well as all those of other lands who claimed to be of the house of Israel. While this discrimination is more particularly and generally spoken of as applying directly against the Samaritans, Jerusalem's nearest Hebrew neighbor, they also practiced such discriminary manners against the Grecians (Hebrew Greeks), Galilians and all the numbers of the 'Jews' or 'Hebrews' of other lands. And this was particularly the case if those Hebrews did not profess a direct descent as a proper 'Jew', meaning of the house of Judah and those acceptable of the priests of Levi, which were those assigned to minister unto the Jews of the tribe of Judah. And they also took particular effort to tear down Jesus, as they 'properly' accused him as being a 'Samaritan' or of the house of Ephraim himself rather than accepting the Son of David as legitimately as a Jew of Judah proper. Interesting.

Yep, the Jewish Rulers did take that hardline against Jesus Christ the Son of Daivd, who ought to be the rightful King of the Jews, that is of Israel. And they do this in connection with the House of Herod, that throne of Israel to which Jesus was heir and that Herods was but pretender unto. This hardline of opposition was not solely against Jesus, but it was also a stance of the Jews against the House of David and their rejection of both Christ and the House of David as being rightfully of the Jews as so just stated in the previous item just covered. That is Herod who sought the blood of all those Sons of David of the Ephraimite hill countries so associated with the birth place and lands of Ephraim for who mother Rachel so weaped and would not be consoled for having further lost in Israel at the hand of that bloody 'Jew' Herod and then even his son who finally took the blood of the cousin of Jesus, John the Baptist so also sought by his father Herod. And not to let it go, that the life and blood of Jesus Christ, Jehoshua, Jehovah who delivers, was also taken by the hands of the Jewish 'pastors' and the Jewish King, yet another Herod again. So was the hate of the Jews and their rejection of him as the Son of David. That considered 'Samaritan' whom they so charged him as being!