You are arguing, dummy.<quoted text>
So who's arguing?
You haven't got a clue who wrote biblical scriptures, yet all users of the words plagiarize without so much as giving "credits" to anyone but a supposed mythical god.
And now you're talking nonsense.
We know who wrote the genuine letters of Paul.
For most of the other texts we do not know who the author was.
But for some we know who it wasn't.
Second Peter is a forgery.
It wasn't written by Peter though it claims to be.
And since it copies wholesale from Jude without credit, it represents plagiarism, too -- plagiarism from yet another forgery.
And yes, even in antiquity, despite frequent Christian claims to the contrary, plagiarism was considered inappropriate. It even was sometime punished beyond social stigma if it offended someone in power.
But not everything in the New Testament is forgery and plagiarism. Luke and Matthew plagiarize from Mark -- they might as well be considered later editions of Mark. But all three were written anonymously and so don't qualify as forgeries, just falsely attributed texts.
But not everything therein represents plagiarism. If the author of Matthew says scripture tells us something, that is not plagiarism. That is a reference to the Hebrew Bible, or more precisely, the Septuagint, the Greek version in antiquity of the Hebrew Bible. And everyone understood that. That would not be plagiarism in an otherwise largely plagiarized work.