There's a big difference between Nazareth and Bethlehem. One is situated in Galilee in the north, the other a short distance from Jerusalem in Judea in the south.
Ok, so, Jesus was from Nazareth according to Christian history. He was not born on Bethlehem.
You are assuming that when OT says, the Ruler is heard out of Bethlehem, that is a reference to Jesus, and thus He must have been born in Bethlehem.
Do you see your assumption?
But when you come to Christian history and NT, there is no verse that actually says, Jesus was from Bethlehem.
Do you see the point?
The point is, the Ruler in OT, who would be heard from Bethlehem is not Jesus. It is the Return of Christ! And this New Person who is the Return of Christ, is not Jesus, but metaphorically is said to be return of Christ. This new person is descendent of Jesse. Jesus did not have a human father, so, He was not descendant of Jesse.
Micah was not confused when he prophesied that the 'ruler of Israel' would come from 'among the thousands of Judah'.
I didnt say Micah was confused. He was a prophet and giving true prophecies. But the Ruler of Israel who would appear in End Times, could not be Jesus for the reasons explained in Bahai scriptures, as I posted.
This is a serious issue. Baha'u'llah was not born in Bethlehem and this disqualifies him from being the Messiah.
This is your interpretation that the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem. My interpretation is, the scriptures is saying the Ruler of Israel would announce from Bethlehem, and His words shall be heard from that region. So, I don't have an issue.
The other point about Jesus' genealogy is that two records, Matthew's and Luke's, both have to be taken into account. Only by uniting the two is it possible for his royal and legal lines to be combined successfully.
Feel free to quote. Does Mathew or Luke actually say, Jesus was a descendant of Jesse or David? How would they say that, when Jesus did not even have a human father?
Another point worth raising is with regard to peace. Jesus brings division to the world, but peace to those who know him. This means that we will not see peace in this world until he returns to being justice and reign over all. If people cry 'peace' you can be sure that the end is near!
In our view the Christ has returned and all those events such as rumors of war, were the events prior to Bahaullah. In 18th and 19th century there war many wars and rumors of war, and King rising against king. I dont see anymore king rising against king.
Why would we have to experience a judment or 'day of wrath' if true peace was to be found in this world?
The promise of peace and unity was given in the scriptures and it was supposed to happen at the time of End, when Christ returns. Bahais believe Bahaullah is the return of Christ who brought all the teachings to humanity to establish peace. But humanity for the most part rejected Bahaullah who is the Manifestation of God.
Thus God changed His plan!
Can God change His plan, when He promised to bring something good?
According to scriptures yes:
"One instant I may speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to uproot and to demolish and to destroy. And when that nation repents of its evil for which I spoke concerning it, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do to it.
And at one instant I may speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant, And it will do what is evil in My eyes, not to hearken to My voice, I will repent of the good I said to benefit it." (Jeremiah 18:7-10)
so based on those verses, and specially the part I bolded, it does not seem to me contradictory, with Bible, if God promises a Messiah to come and build a new kingdom in east and west, and to bring peace but, if the Messiah comes according to Will of God, He faces evilness and prosecution, God changes His mind about what He had promised and posponds it to a future time.