Why do Gentiles assume they should follow the ten commandments?

[Shermana]

There are many reasons that Jews don't proselytize.

One reason is that that God already has a relationship with humanity that started with Noah. It was that relationship with God that Abraham and Sarah taught their guests about.

The fact that God and Abraham forged a special relationship doesn't invalidate God's relationship with people who aren't Abraham's descendants.

As such, there is no need for non-Jews to become Jews. If they want to, they have to want the whole package, including commandments that don't make logical sense, other than "because God said so".

I don't fight hard to "prove" what I believe because you can't prove faith. I could rhapsodize about the joys of keeping Kosher, sexual modesty, Sabbath observance, or any number of other things people who don't believe as I do consider outdated, outmoded, or unnecessarily strict.

The thing is, they don't believe as I do. No matter what I say, it isn't likely to change their minds.

The good news is that non-Jews were never obligated to do those commandments beyond the Seven Laws of Noah, and their many facets.

It makes me sad when Jews aren't interested in being observant as I try to be, but everything good they do counts to the good.

I might try to explain myself better later.

I should state here again that the 7 Noahide Laws is a completely Rabbinical concept that has absolutely no scriptural basis. The gentiles are expected to obey all the Laws as well as the Israelites when dwelling in the land, that's all the scripture says (And must be circed if they want to celebrate Passover). Even the Book of Jubilees which is the best source of the Noahide Laws, has a different set. It simply has no basis, even if its an ancient tradition. There's no reason to believe that those are the only 7 rules which nations are expected to obey and are crushed for not obeying.

With that said, Jews were very active in converting people in the ancient days. What's the point of being a "Light to the nations" in the first place? Clearly, the only reason why Jews stopped prosletyzing was when the Church and Muslims banned it, there is no excuse now. Heck, Orthodox prosletyzing just to reform Jews would be a great idea. There's a reason why half of Jews intermarry these days. Without prosletyzing, a religion cannot expect anything but to stagnate or decline IMO.

 

[Harmonious]

I should state here again that the 7 Noahide Laws is a completely Rabbinical concept that has absolutely no scriptural basis.

As a nice, neat list, you are right. But in actuality, there certainly is scriptural basis, whether or not you'd accept it as proof. Perhaps when I post from my PC and not my handheld I'll look it up. Details are indeed in Rabbinic literature, but the actual commandments are at least hinted to in scripture.

The gentiles are expected to obey all the Laws as well as the Israelites when dwelling in the land, that's all the scripture says (And must be circed if they want to celebrate Passover).

There is no scriptural basis to believe that non-Jews are meant to keep the same laws as Jews. All over the Five Books of Moses, the words "because I took you out of Egypt" and "because I am holy so you must be" can be found, whereby God Himself makes a distinction between His expectations of the Jews and the nations of the world.

The laws of Shabbat refer to all classes of Jews and non-Jewish servants. Strangers who dwell in the land could easily refer to converts.

Passover isn't to be celebrated by non-Jews even if they are circumcised. It is all about celebrating being Jewish. (It's a bit more complicated than that, but on the simplest level, that's what it is.)

The fact that non-Jews celebrate it on their own is their business. But it certainly isn't a scriptural obligation for non-Jews to celebrate Passover.

Even the Book of Jubilees which is the best source of the Noahide Laws, has a different set. It simply has no basis, even if its an ancient tradition. There's no reason to believe that those are the only 7 rules which nations are expected to obey and are crushed for not obeying.

This Book of Jubilees is as authoritative to me as Rabbinic literature seems to be to you. Which is to say, not at all.

With that said, Jews were very active in converting people in the ancient days.

I know. And after Herod's father was forced to convert, and Herod's resentment and destruction of Jewish sages, it was acknowledged that proselyzation was a bad idea.

Actively making conversion difficult to all but the most stalwart believers happened in reaction to Christians and Muslims who pretended but then used knowledge to more easily persecute Jews.

What's the point of being a "Light to the nations" in the first place?

There is something to be said for living life and being a good role model.

Based on my discussions with non-Jewish friends and acquaintances in grad school, more people were clearly moved emotionally by the courteous behavior and inclusion in participation in Hillel (Jewish club, for those who didn't know) activities than the proselyzation where people felt like missionaries were selling something they weren't sure they wanted to buy.

After months of my politely greeting security guards, a few of those security guards asked me about my beliefs and I was happy to answer their questions.

Heck, Orthodox prosletyzing just to reform Jews would be a great idea.

Jewish outreach organizations often do. But there is also such a thing as gauging a receptive audience.

A local Chabad Rabbi used to have a Tefillin station at Vassar College, wherein he would encourage Jewish men to wear the Tefillin, say the blessing, and say a few other prayers. He was run off campus, as Reform Jews complained that he threatened their identity as Reform Jews, and felt he was proselytizing.

Knowing what goes on at these Tefillin stations, I'm pretty sure he wasn't. Still... The Jews on campus weren't receptive, and the Rabbi found other things to do.

There's a reason why half of Jews intermarry these days. Without prosletyzing, a religion cannot expect anything but to stagnate or decline IMO.

I would say that it has nothing at all to do with proselyzation and everything to do with giving existing Jews a meaningful Jewish education.

 

[Shermana]

As a nice, neat list, you are right. But in actuality, there certainly is scriptural basis, whether or not you'd accept it as proof. Perhaps when I post from my PC and not my handheld I'll look it up. Details are indeed in Rabbinic literature, but the actual commandments are at least hinted to in scripture.

Good luck with that scriptural basis. While you"re at it, how did Noah know which animals were clean? What "Statutes, ordinances, and judgments" was Abraham obeying that made him so favored?

There is no scriptural basis to believe that non-Jews are meant to keep the same laws as Jews.

Numbers 15:15

15 There shall be all one law and judgment both for you and for them who are strangers in the land.

All over the Five Books of Moses, the words "because I took you out of Egypt" and "because I am holy so you must be" can be found, whereby God Himself makes a distinction between His expectations of the Jews and the nations of the world.

I didn't say there wasn't a distinction between Israel and gentiles in that they are expected to be holy and holier than gentiles. But as anyone can see, the stranger who dwells in the land must obey the same Law as the Israelites. Again I ask, what is the point of being the "light unto the nations"? Why must the gentiles observe Succoth in Zechariah 14 or be struck with drought and plagues? Why are they to bring sacrifices?

The laws of Shabbat refer to all classes of Jews and non-Jewish servants. Strangers who dwell in the land could easily refer to converts.

There is no reason to assume that all strangers refers to converts. Do you mean to say that the text implies non-converts are free to not obey the law? So I disagree, it doesn't "easily" refer to converts, that's a stretch and has some contradictions. Also, the Shabbat Law refers to ALL Strangers in the land, whether they are servants or free.

Passover isn't to be celebrated by non-Jews even if they are circumcised. It is all about celebrating being Jewish. (It's a bit more complicated than that, but on the simplest level, that's what it is.)

\Are you unaware that it specifically says the stranger living among them must be circumcised if he wishes to celebrate passover?

Exodus 12:48
"An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the LORD's Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it.

Which means it's allowed and condoned. To say "isn't to be" implies that they shouldn't. What can't be done is for non_Jews to celebrate passover if they aren't circed. But if they are, they can and, possibly should.

The fact that non-Jews celebrate it on their own is their business. But it certainly isn't a scriptural obligation for non-Jews to celebrate Passover

.

I disagree. You could just as easily say that it's commanded but not allowed if they're not circumcised. If can be read that they are required to do so if they are snipped.

This Book of Jubilees is as authoritative to me as Rabbinic literature seems to be to you. Which is to say, not at all.

My point was that much of the basis of Rabbinical literature's formation of the Noahide laws comes from Jubilees and such works.

I know. And after Herod's father was forced to convert, and Herod's resentment and destruction of Jewish sages, it was acknowledged that proselyzation was a bad idea.

So because Herod apparently killed a bunch of sages because he resented a forced conversion, now it's a bad idea to prosletyze? Can you count how many fallacies are in that argument?

Actively making conversion difficult to all but the most stalwart believers happened in reaction to Christians and Muslims who pretended but then used knowledge to more easily persecute Jews.

Can you please explain what you mean by this? I fail to see what "used knowledge to more easily persecute Jews" can possibly translate to. The Muslims and orthodox "Christians" forced Jewish prosletyzing to end, it wasn't a reaction by Jews, it was a reaction by Christian and Muslim authorities. Nowadays, the lack of interest in prosletyzing is a reaction to this reaction. As I posted, 10% of Rome's population was Jewish in its heyday and I doubt most of those were Ethnic Hebrews.

There is something to be said for living life and being a good role model.

And what is"Being a good role model" exactly?

Based on my discussions with non-Jewish friends and acquaintances in grad school, more people were clearly moved emotionally by the courteous behavior and inclusion in participation in Hillel (Jewish club, for those who didn't know) activities than the proselyzation where people felt like missionaries were selling something they weren't sure they wanted to buy.

Aggressive "Christian" prosletyzing tactics do not represent Prosletyzing as a whole. Bringing friends to a Hillel meeting and explaining them to any questions they may have, with the silent intent of hoping they accept what you consider truth as Truth, is prosletyzing that is more of the kind I'm referring to. I'm not talking about door-knocking missionaries, I'm talking about taking an active effort to invite people to events like this example.

After months of my politely greeting security guards, a few of those security guards asked me about my beliefs and I was happy to answer their questions.
Jewish outreach organizations often do. But there is also such a thing as gauging a receptive audience.

The security guards only asked because they were forced to be there and notice what was going on. Potentially receptive audiences are all over, it's a matter of making it known to them that there is a way to participate. However, there doesn't seem to be much interest in having events that are specifically tailored to people of other faiths, it's more about them just happening to be there for a rare reason.

A local Chabad Rabbi used to have a Tefillin station at Vassar College, wherein he would encourage Jewish men to wear the Tefillin, say the blessing, and say a few other prayers. He was run off campus, as Reform Jews complained that he threatened their identity as Reform Jews, and felt he was proselytizing.

Ran off Campus? He didn't have very good representation then. Part of the problem lays with Reform Jews and their commonly outright hostility to traditionalism, they are the ones who need to be prosletyzed the most to moreso than gentiles. However, it also has to do with tact. Was the guy being too pushy?

Knowing what goes on at these Tefillin stations, I'm pretty sure he wasn't. Still... The Jews on campus weren't receptive, and the Rabbi found other things to do.

I would say that it has nothing at all to do with proselyzation and everything to do with giving existing Jews a meaningful Jewish education.

I agree. However, what is called "prosletyzing" can be interpreted to include such. "Christians" just want to give me a "meaningful Christian education" and that's Prosletyzing when they state their beliefs as truth without being willing to address the issues and questions, having a set Rhetoric without willingness to even discuss the iffy parts. Without such active attempt to give "Jews a meaningful Jewish education", will Orthodox numbers grow?

 

[Harmonious]

There are too many parts and pieces. I will not attempt to answer eveything in one post, but I will take parts and pieces and answer them as I may.

Good luck with that scriptural basis. While you"re at it, how did Noah know which animals were clean?

1. Avodah Zarah עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה

Literally: Strange/foreign work/service - i.e. serving an idol or false deity.​

Prohibition against: Idolatry (the deification or worship of any object, creature, human being, or power other than the One True G-d.)​

Commandment to: Believe and trust in G-d alone, as the Almighty Creator and Sustainer of the World.​

This commandment includes the belief in G-d, that He is the creator of everything and He is constantly creating everything anew, and guides everything by His Providence. Indeed the very essence of life is to recognize and believe in the Supreme Being, the Creator of the universe, accepting His laws with awe and love. He is aware of our deeds, and His Providence is over all of creation.​

Refer to: Exodus 20:3-4​

​

2. ‘Birchat’ (Kilelas) HaShem בִּרְכַּת הַשֵׁם​

Literally: ‘Blessing’ the Divine Name. - i.e. Cursing G-d​

Prohibition against: Blasphemy​

Commandment to: Respect and praise G-d and His holy Names.​

This commandment forbids cursing G-d (G-d forbid) in anyway. Trust and loyalty are crucial in life. Know that G-d is just, but humans can’t comprehend our Creator, Who is infinite. One shouldn’t extend his “freedom of speech” to the extreme of blasphemy. Don’t speak against the One Who gave you speech!​

Refer to: Leviticus 24:15​

​

3. Shefichat Damim שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים​

Literally: Spilling blood​

Prohibition against: Murder​

Commandment to: Respect the sanctity of human life.​

This commandment includes prohibitions of murder, abortion (except to save the mothers life), euthanasia and suicide (G-d forbid). This edict protects us from the extremes of selfishness and the violent tendencies that may lie within.​

Refer to: Genesis 9:6​

​

4. Gilui Arayot גִּלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת​

Literally: Exposure of nakedness - i.e. knowing someone in a forbidden sexual way.​

Prohibition against: Sexual transgressions (i.e. incest, adultery, homosexual acts, and bestiality etc)​

Commandment to: Respect traditional family values, because G-d defined marriage.​

This commandment prohibits a gentile man from six immoral acts: with your mother, with your fathers wife, with a another mans wife, with your maternal sister, with an animal, and with another man. Wholesome families are a basis of healthy communities, nations and societies. Sexual transgressions lead to inner spiritual decay.​

Refer to: Genesis 2:24​

​

5. Gezel גָּזֵל​

Literally: To rob, steal or embezzle.​

Prohibition against: Theft (Includes rape and abduction)​

Commandment to: Respect the rights and property of others.​

This commandment prohibits stealing money or goods, a person (kidnapping), or even stealing from your employer. Since our sustenance comes from G-d, we should seek to earn it with honesty and dignity, not through deceit.​

Refer to: Genesis 2:17​

​

6. Ever Min HaChai אֵבָר מִן הֶחָי​

Literally: Limb of the living.​

Prohibition against: Eating a limb or any meat taken from a live animal​

Commandment to: Respect all creatures and avoid cruelty.​

This commandment also prohibits cruelty to animals. Humans are given dominion over the Earth, but we are also its caretakers. Although we may make use of animals, we cannot cause them undue suffering. This commandment prohibits meat taken from an animal while its heart was still beating.​

Refer to: Genesis 9:3-4​

​

7. Dinim דִּינִים​

Literally: Judgement, justice, and law etc.​

Prohibition against: Injustice, Societies with no legal system and breaching Torah law.​

Commandment to: Establish a Just legal system, and pursue Justice​

The descendents of Noah are obligated to create a judicial system to enforce the other six commandments. A fair and effective legal system creates a society worthy of G-d’s blessings. It brings G-d’s ideals for our personal life into a formal order for society, and completes the other six commandments. Justice is the foundation of world peace.​

Refer to: Genesis 34:2-4.


Source
​

 

[Harmonious]

While you"re at it, how did Noah know which animals were clean? What "Statutes, ordinances, and judgments" was Abraham obeying that made him so favored?

The Seven Noachide Laws, circumcision, and the fact that God commanded him to sacrifice his son and Abraham was willing to do it.

There is a Medrash that says that Abraham kept the entire Torah intuitively before it was officially given, but since there is no scriptural evidence for this, it isn't something I'm using as proof.

 

[Harmonious]

Numbers 15:15

15 There shall be all one law and judgment both for you and for them who are strangers in the land.

You know, there is this wonderful thing called context. The context of this verse is in describing how a burnt offering is to be done. With THIS, there is no difference between how a Jew or non-Jew is supposed to do this.

It doesn't mean that all the commandments are to be recognized to have no differentiation between Jews and non-Jews in their performance. Just this one the law is exactly the same.

 

[Harmonious]

I didn't say there wasn't a distinction between Israel and gentiles in that they are expected to be holy and holier than gentiles. But as anyone can see, the stranger who dwells in the land must obey the same Law as the Israelites.

No, not really. I just covered that.

Again I ask, what is the point of being the "light unto the nations"?

I covered that before in a previous post. Simple answer: setting a good behavioral example is what it means to be a light unto the nations.

There are a LOT of commandments which regulate human behavior, and a lot of that involves business ethics, ethical speech, and what more or less turns into lessons in common courtesy (if these commandments are being observed properly). A LOT of good is done when Jews do these things, and it has nothing to do with conversion or proselyzation.

 

[Harmonious]

Why must the gentiles observe Succoth in Zechariah 14 or be struck with drought and plagues? Why are they to bring sacrifices?

I KNOW I've answered this question before, and I'm pretty sure YOU are the one who asked last time.

But again, I'll answer.

After the war that is to happen at the end of days, the people of the nations who went to war against the Jews who are left will come and celebrate Sukkot. One of the many things that is special about Sukkot is that it is, among many other things, a time when the world is judged concerning rainfall.

If the nations that attacked Israel and have now had their remnants spared don't come to Israel to celebrate Sukkot, they will receive a harsh judgment concerning the rain.

This isn't a matter of "all non-Jews will celebrate Jewish holidays now," as much as it is, "This is Judgment Day for rainfall, and now that God is taking measure for measure for this nation having attacked the Jews, God is going to be strict about these people and their judgment for rain and have it hinged on their celebrating the festival of Sukkot."

Context, again, is key.

 

[Harmonious]

There is no reason to assume that all strangers refers to converts. Do you mean to say that the text implies non-converts are free to not obey the law?

Yes. Non-Jews who are not in the conversion process have no obligation to observe Shabbat, especially not in the specific way adhered to by Orthodox Jews.

So I disagree, it doesn't "easily" refer to converts, that's a stretch and has some contradictions. Also, the Shabbat Law refers to ALL Strangers in the land, whether they are servants or free.

What is your proof of that?

 

[Harmonious]

\Are you unaware that it specifically says the stranger living among them must be circumcised if he wishes to celebrate passover?

Exodus 12:48
"An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the LORD's Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it.

Which means it's allowed and condoned. To say "isn't to be" implies that they shouldn't. What can't be done is for non_Jews to celebrate passover if they aren't circed. But if they are, they can and, possibly should.

I don't know about your translation. I have a translation that reads: "When a proselyte sojourns among you he shall make the pesach-offering for Hashem, each of his males shall be circumcised, and then he may draw near to perform it and he shall be like the native of the land; no uncircumcised male shall eat of it."

That alien you were referring to is, as I stated a CONVERT. So... It isn't just born Jews who can partake of the Passover offering. Converts to Judaism can as well, even though their forefathers were not redeemed by being taken out of Egypt.

It is a unifying moment between born Jews and converts, really.

 

[Harmonious]

I disagree. You could just as easily say that it's commanded but not allowed if they're not circumcised. If can be read that they are required to do so if they are snipped.

No. If a man is involved in the conversion process but hasn't been circumcised yet, he cannot partake of the Passover offering.

 

[Harmonious]

My point was that much of the basis of Rabbinical literature's formation of the Noahide laws comes from Jubilees and such works.

No. The basis of the Rabbinical literature's formulation (not formation - they didn't invent them, they just listed them) of the Noachide laws is a more in depth reading of the original verses.

You are free to disagree, but I don't believe you and your Book of Jubilee thing, either.

 

[Shermana]

No. If a man is involved in the conversion process but hasn't been circumcised yet, he cannot partake of the Passover offering.

How does that in any way disagree with what I said that they are forbidden if they are not circed?

No. The basis of the Rabbinical literature's formulation (not formation - they didn't invent them, they just listed them) of the Noachide laws is a more in depth reading of the original verses.

"More in depth" is not mutually exclusive to "invented". All doctrines are the more "in depth" interpretation. The entire Rabbinical history involves disputes over how "in depth" their understanding is. But Numbers 15:15 is kinda clear, how many ways can you read it in relation to the preceding verses about sacrifices?

You are free to disagree, but I don't believe you and your Book of Jubilee thing, either.

Well Jewish Encyclopedia says similarly, this appears to be a standard understanding.

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8944-jubilees-book-of#1948

The Noachian Laws. According to Jubilees, vii. 20-29 (comp. Laws, Noachian), Noah enjoined his sons to observe justice, to cover the shame of their flesh, to bless their Creator, to honor father and mother, to love their neighbors, and to refrain from fornication, uncleanness, and all iniquity, for because of these last three things the Flood came upon the earth. Possibly the seven Noachian laws enumerated in Sanh. 56a and Tosef., 'Ab. Zarah, viii. 4, were partly misunderstood by the Greek translator. These laws prohibit the following: (1) injustice; (2) blasphemy against God ("birkat ha-shem," a rabbinical euphemism—"blessing of God" instead of "blasphemy"); (3) incest ("gillui 'erwah"); (4) idolatry; (5) murder (comp. Gen. R. xxxi. 6: "ḥamas" [violence] in Gen. vi. 11 includes murder, idolatry, and incest; comp. Tanna debe Eliyahu Zuṭa x.); (6) eating flesh cut from living animals (probably included in the Biblical prohibition in Gen. ix. 4 against eating flesh from which the blood has not been drained; comp. Jubilees, vii. 29); (7) stealing. (For the statement that the men of the Flood were guilty of fornication see Gen. R. xxxi.; and in regard to their going about uncovered see Yalḳ., Job, xxiv. 7.) According to the author, Canaan, the son of Ham, seized by violence the land of Palestine, which belonged, by lot and by mutual agreement sealed by oath, to the sons of Shem; therefore Canaan was cursed by his father, Ham, and by his brothers Cush and Mizraim (ch. x. 29-34), and the Israelites in conquering the land of Canaan simply reclaimed their inheritance. The Garden of Eden, as the dwelling-place of the Lord, fell to Shem. (ch. viii. 18-19, with reference to Gen. ix. 26-27), and the rest of the earth was divided by Noah among his three sons for generations to come (ch. viii.-ix.).

 

[Harmonious]

So because Herod apparently killed a bunch of sages because he resented a forced conversion, now it's a bad idea to prosletyze?

Yes. If you knew how many sages he killed because of his resentment, you might have agreed with their logic.

Or not. I really don't care.

Can you count how many fallacies are in that argument?

You know... No one said YOU have to like the reasoning.

I described what I learned was the reasoning.

It was never a Jewish commandment to "spread the word". The fact that it was done and done badly in a way that seriously harmed the Jewish community is a pretty good reason to not do it again.

If that's not good enough of a reason for you, then I'm sorry, but that is your problem.

 

[Harmonious]

How does that in any way disagree with what I said that they are forbidden if they are not circed?

The difference is in the assumption that the only thing holding back a non-Jew from the Passover offering is the circumcision.

Your way was about non-Jews who were not circumcised.

My way was about converts to Judaism who are not yet circumcised.

 

[Shermana]

You know, there is this wonderful thing called context. The context of this verse is in describing how a burnt offering is to be done. With THIS, there is no difference between how a Jew or non-Jew is supposed to do this.

It doesn't mean that all the commandments are to be recognized to have no differentiation between Jews and non-Jews in their performance. Just this one the law is exactly the same.

I know much about this thing called context. And there are arguments about context. You are interpreting it to mean it only applies to sacrifices. If you think "One Law and One Judgment" only relays to the verses about sacrifice, that's your wish. You are free to believe your version of context is right as long as on here you recognize that your context is not necessarily correct. I argue about context all the time, so if you can prove that the entire preceding series of verses only is about the burnt offerings (why are gentiles to offer sacrifices anyway?), feel free to explain, and show where the Noahide Laws says anything about gentiles even making burnt offerings while you're at it.

 

[Shermana]

I KNOW I've answered this question before, and I'm pretty sure YOU are the one who asked last time.

I think you answered it in a dodgy way much like this time.

But again, I'll answer.

After the war that is to happen at the end of days, the people of the nations who went to war against the Jews who are left will come and celebrate Sukkot. One of the many things that is special about Sukkot is that it is, among many other things, a time when the world is judged concerning rainfall.

Where does it say that the world is judged concerning rainfall?

If the nations that attacked Israel and have now had their remnants spared don't come to Israel to celebrate Sukkot, they will receive a harsh judgment concerning the rain.

Right. Why at this time must they do it? How will they know to do it? Why is this the special occasion and not all the other times they attacked Israel? Also, they get hit by plagues, not just drought.

This isn't a matter of "all non-Jews will celebrate Jewish holidays now," as much as it is, "This is Judgment Day for rainfall, and now that God is taking measure for measure for this nation having attacked the Jews, God is going to be strict about these people and their judgment for rain and have it hinged on their celebrating the festival of Sukkot."

Talk about taking up invented contexts. Please recognize that everything you're saying is not at all what the plain face value of the text says.

Context, again, is key.

Context is key, and your context is not necesarrily correct. IMO, your context involves a distortion of the text and twisting it to mean something other than what it plainly means. You can talk about "in depth" understandings all you want as long as you recognize your view is not necessarily "the right context".

 

[Harmonious]

Can you please explain what you mean by this? I fail to see what "used knowledge to more easily persecute Jews" can possibly translate to.

We seem to be speaking to cross purposes, here. I explained that "making the process difficult" was to discourage people who have the concept of scriptural knowledge, or even practical knowledge, and would use that to "gain an in" so that they would be allowed serious learning, whereby they could either 1) use this information to use against Jews in further proselytizing efforts or 2) use this information to change what is known ever so slightly so that misinformation could be brought to already hostile political forces to fuel a massacre against Jews in whatever town.

This has been done countless times over Jewish history, so the idea of actively discouraging new initiates is unfortunately sometimes necessary.

The Muslims and orthodox "Christians" forced Jewish prosletyzing to end,

Well... It was never public after that, but when Muslims and Christians chose to convert to Judaism at great risk to themselves despite everything else... It was not only allowed, but the converts who made it are honored by the title "righteous converts."

it wasn't a reaction by Jews, it was a reaction by Christian and Muslim authorities.

Nowadays, the lack of interest in prosletyzing is a reaction to this reaction. As I posted, 10% of Rome's population was Jewish in its heyday and I doubt most of those were Ethnic Hebrews.

I know. I mentioned that. Hadrian's own relative Onkolos managed to single-handedly convince several Roman legions to convert.

It wasn't that anyone was forced, or that Jews specifically offered (besides Onkolos)... It was a useful tactic in turning forces that would otherwise kill numbers of Jews away from that goal, and their belief was so strong that they convinced more of the forces that tried to separate Onkolos from the rest of the Jews.

Conversion is allowed. It has been part of Jewish history since the beginning. But actively getting people to become Jews isn't what we do. We have no need to.

Jews are busy being Jews. Non-Jews who are living ethical lives are doing what God wants them to do. If non-Jews choose to become Jews, it should be with a full understanding of what that means if one should make that commitment.

 

[Harmonious]

...so if you can prove that the entire preceding series of verses only is about the burnt offerings

Seriously?

Numbers 15:
2. Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: When you arrive in the Land of your dwelling place, which I am giving you,
3. and you make a fire offering to the Lord, a burnt offering or a sacrifice [namely a peace offering], for an expressed vow or for a voluntary offering or on your festivals, to provide a pleasing fragrance for the Lord, from the cattle or from the sheep.
4. The one who brings his offering to the Lord shall present a meal offering containing one tenth fine flour mixed with a quarter of a hin of oil.
5. And a quarter of a hin of wine for a libation, you shall prepare with the burnt offering or for the sacrifice, for each lamb.
6. Or for a ram, you shall present a meal offering containing two tenths fine flour mixed with a third of a hin of oil.
7. And a third of a hin of wine for a libation; you shall offer up, a pleasing fragrance to the Lord.
8. If you prepare a young bull as a burnt offering or sacrifice by expressing a vow, or for a peace offering for the Lord,
9. with the young bull he shall offer up a meal offering consisting of three tenths fine flour mixed with half a hin of oil.
10. And you shall offer half a hin of wine for a libation, a fire offering of pleasing fragrance to the Lord.
11. So shall it be done for each ox or ram, or for a young sheep or young goat.
12. In accordance with the number you offer up, so shall you present for each one, according to their numbers.
13. Every native born shall do it in this manner, to offer up a fire offering of pleasing fragrance to the Lord.
14. If a proselyte resides with you, or those among you in future generations, and he offers up a fire offering of pleasing fragrance to the Lord, as you make it, so shall he make it.
15. One rule applies to the assembly, for yourselves and for the proselyte who resides [with you]; one rule applies throughout your generations just as [it is] for you, so [it is] for the proselyte, before the Lord.
16. There shall be one law and one ordinance for you and the proselyte who resides [with you].

What more context could you possibly need to prove that this is about a fire-offering?

(why are gentiles to offer sacrifices anyway?), feel free to explain, and show where the Noahide Laws says anything about gentiles even making burnt offerings while you're at it.

Now you are being deliberately obtuse. If you bothered to read verse three, it says
3. and you make a fire offering to the Lord, a burnt offering or a sacrifice [namely a peace offering], for an expressed vow or for a voluntary offering

No one is being forced here. If a non-Jew or a convert brings an offering because they want to thank God, or because they want to express positive thoughts of their own about God and choose to make an offering, the rule for non-Jews who choose to bring a fire-offering is the same for Jews who choose to bring a fire-offering.

 

[Harmonious]

You know, Shermana, the only reason I answered your questions is that I thought someone else can learn for it.

It is obvious that you have no respect for me, or the answers that I bring. I explained to you the Jewish perspective, and you have nothing better to do but throw it back in my face.

You want to say I'm making up context, but I've provided as much context as can be established.

You are deliberately provoking me. I think you are being obnoxious for no other reason than because you can. And I choose not to respond to this garbage coming from you.