• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
No I'm not, the word plagiarism didn't exist in Matthew's time, that I know of.
Click to expand...

That would be incorrect. The concept of plagiarism existed long before Matthew's time. Plato, in fact, was accused of plagiarizing Philolaus' book on Pythagoras without appropriate attribution. This is set forth in Pythagoras: His Life, Teaching, and Influence (p. 114), by Christopher Reidwig (Cornell University Press 2005). (That book, unlike Matthew, cites its primary sources.)

Obviously, the English word "plagiarism" did not exist in the first centuries C.E., but the concept did, since it existed in the 4th century B.C.E., when Plato lived. The word used in the accusation was "timeographein", which, I understand means "to write like Timaeus" (and it was not a compliment).

So even if Matthew would not be accused of "plagiarism" he should have been accused of "Marcographein", which amounts to the same thing.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
No I'm not, the word plagiarism didn't exist in Matthew's time, that I know of.
Click to expand...


DOC, this is the trouble with most of your threads in a nutshell. When there is something you do not know, you often assume others do not as well, or you leap to an unfounded conclusion based on your lack of knowledge. Just look at many of your OPs in light of these comments.

I would recommend asking or learning before assuming or concluding. After all, that is the beginning of critical thinking.
 
marksman said:
That would be incorrect. The concept of plagiarism existed long before Matthew's time. Plato, in fact, was accused of plagiarizing Philolaus' book on Pythagoras without appropriate attribution. This is set forth in Pythagoras: His Life, Teaching, and Influence (p. 114), by Christopher Reidwig (Cornell University Press 2005). (That book, unlike Matthew, cites its primary sources.)

Obviously, the English word "plagiarism" did not exist in the first centuries C.E., but the concept did, since it existed in the 4th century B.C.E., when Plato lived. The word used in the accusation was "timeographein", which, I understand means "to write like Timaeus" (and it was not a compliment).

So even if Matthew would not be accused of "plagiarism" he should have been accused of "Marcographein", which amounts to the same thing.
Click to expand...

So then you agree the eyewitness and apostle Matthew wrote the book of Matthew. You just think the eyewitness Matthew copied parts of another book. What parts did he copy and from whom?
 
DOC said:
So then you agree the eyewitness and apostle Matthew wrote the book of Matthew. You just think the eyewitness Matthew copied parts of another book. What parts did he copy and from whom?
Click to expand...

No. You claimed that it was plagiarized:
DOC said:
How do you know this. Mathew could have put in parts of Mark's gospel into his to to save time, and then, being a eye witness, added new material that was not in Mark's Gospel.
Click to expand...

Why don't you tell us?
 
paximperium said:
No. You claimed that it was plagiarized:


Why don't you tell us?
Click to expand...

No I didn't. I said parts "could" have been copied. Copied and plagiarism are two different words. And don't forget the Book of Matthew was not signed. How can you claim something written by someone else is yours when you don't even sign something. The fact that it was not signed shows the author is not looking for personal glory. He's looking to get out the greatest message, and the greatest system of ethics (according to Thomas Jefferson anyway) the world has ever known. And he is trying to do this in a very dangerous Roman occupied land where people are getting nailed to trees.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
No I didn't. I said parts "could" have been copied. Copied and plagiarism are two different words.
Click to expand...
False.

plagiarism
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
pla·gia·rism Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pley-juh-riz-uhm, -jee-uh-riz-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.
2. something used and represented in this manner.

And don't forget the Book of Matthew was not signed. How can you claim something written by someone else is yours when you don't even sign something.
Click to expand...
Meaning you have no idea wrote those books and have no idea about the validity of what was written? Thanks for playing.

The fact that it was not signed shows the author is not looking for personal glory.
Click to expand...
So?
He's looking to get out the greatest message, and the greatest system of ethics (according to Thomas Jefferson anyway) the world has ever known.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant Argument from Authority. Thanks for quoting Jefferson, a Deist who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus.

And he is trying to do this in a very dangerous Roman occupied land where people are getting nailed to trees.
Click to expand...
So? What is the relevance of whether what was written is true or a not?

Come on, don't tell me the Heaven's Gate, the Cult of Kali and all those cults who are worried about being persecuted MUST be telling the truth because they are being persecuted. Silly DOC, logic is for kids.
 
Hokulele said:
So, Matthew didn't write the gospel attributed to him and the fact that it was unsigned is the evidence. Got it.
Click to expand...

The greater evidence is that he did write it as was pointed out earlier. It just wasn't signed. Would you sign an article you wrote about the greatness of the Jewish people in 1940 Berlin. Or would you not sign it and live to write more articles; and live to possibly copy parts of other great articles others have written (and not signed) that you agree with. In times like those it is not time to worry about plagiarism it is time to worry about getting the message out to as many people as possible.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
The greater evidence is that he did write it as was pointed out earlier. It just wasn't signed. Would you sign an article you wrote about the greatness of the Jewish people in 1940 Berlin. Or would you not sign it and live to write more articles; and live to possibly copy parts of other great articles others have written (and not signed) that you agree with. In times like those it is not time to worry about plagiarism it is time to worry about getting the message out to as many people as possible.
Click to expand...

So that means no evidence? Gotcha.
 
DOC said:
In times like those it is not time to worry about plagiarism it is time to worry about getting the message out to as many people as possible.
Click to expand...
So back to the original question:
So as you have claimed it was plagiarized, why don't you tell us?
 
Come on, don't tell me the Heaven's Gate, the Cult of Kali and all those Early Christian cults who are worried about being persecuted MUST be telling the truth because they are being persecuted.

DOC said:
OK, I won't.
Click to expand...

Well, thanks for playing.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
So then you agree the eyewitness and apostle Matthew wrote the book of Matthew.
Click to expand...
No. As I stated I think you are abjectly wrong to suggest that the concept of plagiarism (and how inappropriate plagiarism is) did not exist in the first centuries C.E.

I don't know who wrote the Gospel of Matthew. I don't know who wrote the Gospel of Mark. I don't know when they were respectively written.

You had suggested that if the author of the Gospel of Matthew had copied sections of the Gospel of Mark, it would not have been considered unethical at the time (first centuries C.E.)

I was pointing out that your suggestion is historically inaccurate. Copying other people's words without attribution had been considered unethical behavior for centuries before the Gospels of Mark and Matthew were first penned.
 
DOC said:
Copied and plagiarism are two different words.
Click to expand...
But when applied to authored materials, they are synonymous in every important respect.

How can you claim something written by someone else is yours when you don't even sign something.
Click to expand...
People do it all the time (and have since the time of Plato and before). You identify the document by other identifying marks. For instance, you place the statements in indent or quotation marks. Every culture of every age had a way to designate that words bring written are transcribed, rather than original. They had those measures because they all believed that copying without attriubition (aka plagiarism) was unethical.
 
DOC said:
The greater evidence is that he did write it as was pointed out earlier. It just wasn't signed. Would you sign an article you wrote about the greatness of the Jewish people in 1940 Berlin. Or would you not sign it and live to write more articles; and live to possibly copy parts of other great articles others have written (and not signed) that you agree with. In times like those it is not time to worry about plagiarism it is time to worry about getting the message out to as many people as possible.
Click to expand...
So, according to you, MAtthew was afraid of persecution and punishment, so hid his authorship.

Does this mean you disagree with Geisler's reason #10?
DOC said:
Reason #10

The New Testament Writers Abandoned Their Long Held Sacred Beliefs and Practices, Adopted New Ones, And Did Not Deny Their Testimony Under Persecution Or Threat Of Death
Click to expand...
 
joobz said:
So, according to you, MAtthew was afraid of persecution and punishment, so hid his authorship.

Does this mean you disagree with Geisler's reason #10?
Click to expand...

In a sensible world, this would be the end of the thread.
 
six7s said:
ftfy :)
Click to expand...

The main point of my post was to highlight Joobz's post so that DOC, who only has time to read a few posts, would be more likely to see it and respond to it.

DOC has a tough job here. Call me an optimist, but I still think there's a chance DOC will change his mind. At least about Geisler's book.

Joobz said:
So, according to you, MAtthew was afraid of persecution and punishment, so hid his authorship.

Does this mean you disagree with Geisler's reason #10?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom