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

I shall provide a brief rebuttal to Pro’s previous round.“Con's assertion that the line of argument I have chosen is "less effective" is a clear case of begging the question.”By claiming Pro’s 3rd round less effective, have I committed a case of ‘begging the question’?. I don’t believe so. I have given reasons (round 4) as to why I think his 3rd round wasn’t so effective which support my claim as a valid contention rather than a fallacy. I further support my reasons by an example within the same round.“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.”The ‘main issue’ of this debate is the consistency in the gospels regarding Jesus (especially in their portrayal of his divinity). My burden a. is to prove the gospels are not all consistent in this regard and b. to rebut Pro’s evidences of Christ’s divinity in Mark. Both of which I have continued to do so only up until round 3 and a bit of 4, because Pro simply refuses to continue or offer anymore rebuttals, answer them or concede. Rather he claims he has a response available to be provided elsewhere. I’ve already explained how this is an unfair tactic in my previous round. There is a reason why this debate is formatted at maximum flexibility (10000 characters, 72 hours to respond, 5 rounds), to allow the best and complete rebuttals and arguments without compromise.“...it is unfair to use it to add a completely new clause.” There is no new added clause. From the very first round I have been questioning the reliability of the gospels due to their inconsistencies regarding Jesus and his portrayal, which I have spent much time proving.“Contrary to Con's claim that I took on the burden of proving the reliability of the gospels with my statement in R2…” It is clear beyond daylight that Pro took on this burden, because he went on explaining why he believed the gospels to be reliable in his actual rebuttal, “I will explain why within my actual rebuttals.” (round 2)“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.”Pro also is yet to address exactly what I said after that sentence. Which is ‘Pro has provided his evidences to prove Mark’s portrayal of Jesus as divine, which I have given further refutations in round 3. Pro so far has left them unanswered. Also (Pro has left unanswered) the in the inconsistencies/differences I’ve mentioned in my introduction, round 2 and round 3, (they) show how Jesus’ image has evolved and portrayed closer to a divine nearer to the latest gospels.’Quick note: another example of Pro summarising my position out of context.“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.” In fact I have not made any such admission. Pro has not yet addressed what I’ve brought to his attention in the 3rd and 4th round, It explains why I have not made such admission. And again I bring what I said to his attention, ‘There's a difference in how Mark ended up portraying of Jesus to be, and Mark’s interpretation of who he was. Regardless of what Mark believed Jesus to be, he portrayed him as human prophet. For example, Mark’s account of the story of the fig tree clearly portrays Jesus as a human who was ignorant of the season.’ (one can read this in context of the rebuttal in round 3).“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.”I would like to hear his response within this debate avaliable for me, the voters and readers to see. Pro may or may not choose to offer his response in his next and final round. If he chooses not to, then it is clear he has refused to address my key arguments. If he chooses to, then it is unfair that it has taken him three rounds to address as I wouldn't be able offer any more rebuttals.In conclusion of this debate.For a number of reasons, Pro has been unsuccessful in holding his case for the motion, some of which I have listed below.a. Pro has failed to provide any further rebuttals or refutations to my evidences of inconsistencies and differences (in round 3) regarding Jesus and his divinity in the gospels. b. Pro has failed to provide any further rebuttals or refutations to my continued scrutiny (round 3) of his evidences for Christ’s divinity in Mark.c. For part of the debate Pro had fallen into a habit of arguing with common interpretations of certain verses without any evidential basis.d. Pro has been consistent in summarising my position on certain issues out of context.e. He has managed to contradict himself on whether the gospels are consistent or not. I pointed this out in round 4.f. Pro has repeatedly ignored to address certain issues I repeatedly brought to his attention. g. Pro claims he has his responses ready elsewhere outside of this debate. For these reasons I still hold to my comment from an earlier round, ‘Pro has not yet successfully shown to us that the gospels portray a consistent picture of Jesus, nor is he yet successful in proving the divinity of Christ in Mark.’I believe I have given sufficient reasons, throughout the debate, to support my case against the motion. I have proven the gospels are inconsistent in regards to their portrayal of Jesus and his ‘divinity’. I have proven that Mark portrays Jesus as a human Prophet regardless of his own personal interpretations, and I've proven the following gospels portray Jesus as a 'divine', contrary to Mark's portrayal. Therefore I conclude, on an evidential basis the gospels do not hold any credentials of reliability.It is obvious that Pro has put his effort into this debate, I thank him for a vigorous and lively and engaging debate, and I hope maybe there are other topics we can have a discussion on. I also thank our readers.I hope I have understood all of Pro’s argument correctly, if i have fallen short in understanding any I trust he will correct me.Thank you.