The Gospels portray a consistent picture of Jesus peace be upon him.

As anticipated, my last speech has been met with a heated rebuttal. I thank Con for what has been an extremely interesting debate that grows even more interesting as we continue.On the resolutionCon's assertion that the line of argument I have chosen is "less effective" is a clear case of begging the question. If it can be shown that Con's resolution requires of us what I claim it does, then this debate is essentially over.Again, I am willing to answer the points my opponent has raised in another medium where my answer will not distract from the main issue of the debate. Saying that I must either address or concede these points is another case of begging the question and is not his place to decide.I did not "choose to ignore" any part of Con's introduction. Rather, I contest that the second sentence of the thirteenth paragraph may be used to nuance one's resolution and opening statement. If I am wrong in this, then it is permissible to change or modify one's resolution without clearly bringing it to the attention of your opponent. And regardless, while an introduction may nuance a resolution, it is unfair to use it to add a completely new clause.Contrary to Con's claim that I took on the burden of proving the reliability of the gospels with my statement in R2 that "I do consider the gospels to be a reliable narrative of Jesus' life. I will explain why within my actual rebuttals," I was careful to say "Con seemed curious about my view on the topic of biblical inerrancy, so I will expound upon them before moving into my rebuttals. I hope that the voters will understand that these are not arguments I am making but rather biographical information about myself."On consistencyYes, I have said that there are inconsistencies in gospel accounts. No one, not even those who hold to biblical inerrancy, would dispute this. Because of this and because of the way that Con phrased his resolution and introduction, it seemed that what he was arguing was, as I stated earlier, “Clearly, what we are debating is not whether there are errors of a general nature within the gospels, but whether they are inconsistent to the degree that the gospel of Mark portrays Christ as human while later gospel portray him as divine.” If I had thought he was arguing anything else, I would have never accepted Con's debate challenge as it would have been no debate at all. To my surprise, Con cited the above quote and then said "Yes, this is exactly what we’re debating," thereby affirming everything I have said thus far in this round. On Jesus' divinityI agree with Con that I cannot win this debate based on Matthew's opinion of Christ, that it is his portrayal of him that matters. Did Mark portray Jesus as divine? I have shown and my opponent has admitted that the opening of Mark's gospel casts Jesus as God incarnate.For me to prove that there is any further evidence of Christ's divinity in the gospel is unnecessary, as this introduction lays the framework for how we are to understand Jesus throughout the rest of the book. In other words, Mark's depiction of Christ is of God come to earth to save mankind.I look forward to hearing Con's response. If he would like to hear my response to the alleged and (to this debate) irrelevant inconsistency he presented at the end of his R4, I invite him to private message me.