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

Thank you to Con for his detailed and intelligent reply.I would like to begin by pointing out to Con that his resolution places no burden on me to prove the gospels to be reliable in order to win this debate. I need only prove that they are not inconsistent.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.The position I take is one of biblical infallibility. To quote Wikipedia, this is the belief that "the Bible is completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose." This is an orthodox view, though not the fundamentalist one. Biblical inerrancy, on the other hand, is the belief that "the doctrine that the Bible, in its original manuscripts, is accurate and totally free from error of any kind."I do consider the gospels to be a reliable narrative of Jesus' life. I will explain why within my actual rebuttals.RebuttalsIf the gospels contain errors, how can they be a consistent narrative of Christ's life? Minor discrepancies within the biblical text do not make it an unreliable or inconsistent source. The school textbooks we used to learn history no doubt had minor historical errors here and there. Does this mean that none of them were reliable sources for historical truth? If the author mistyped a date does that mean that the entire narrative is compromised? Of course not, and it is the same with the gospels. Just because there were mistakes on minor issues does not mean that the overarching narrative of Christ's life is unreliable or inconsistent with other accounts. It is worth quoting Christian philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig at length on this issue:We can extend the point by considering the proposal that the Gospels should be understood as different performances, as it were, of orally transmitted tradition. The prominent New Testament scholar Jimmy Dunn, prompted by the work of Ken Bailey on the transmission of oral tradition in Middle Eastern cultures, has sharply criticized what he calls the “stratigraphic model” of the Gospels, which views them as composed of different layers laid one upon another on top of a primitive tradition. (See James D. G. Dunn,Jesus Remembered[Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 2003].) On the stratigraphic model each tiny deviation from the previous layer occasions speculations about the reasons for the change, sometimes leading to quite fanciful hypotheses about the theology of some redactor. But Dunn insists that oral tradition works quite differently. What matters is that the central idea is conveyed, often in some key words and climaxing in some saying which is repeated verbatim; but the surrounding details are fluid and incidental to the story.(1)In other words, it was the overall message that was of primary importance to the gospel writers, not complete accuracy in minor details. Let us remember that the Jewish people did not even have the equivalent of quotation marks in their language at this time.(2)Does Christ clearly state that he is not God in Mark 10:18?Jesus denies neither his goodness nor his godhood in this verse. Rather, he is asking the young man a question in order to make a point and cause him to think more deeply about the nature of Jesus' goodness. Did he mean good (agathos) in the absolute sense that God is good? In other words, Jesus was asking the man to view him as God, the exact opposite of what Con claimed.(3)Defending my evidencesOn the nuances of the phrase "Son of God"While it is true that Jewish religious literature is replete with references to "sons of God," Jesus' use of this phrase is unique. This can be seen by the way Jesus refers to God as "Father." In the Hebrew Bible no individual ever addresses God as "my Father". Even the one partial exception to that universal negative does not have David directly saying to God "you are my Father." Rather, this is a prayer which God puts in the mouth of the king.Also, the Christ is uniquely referred to as the "begotten son" of God.(4)One must also admit that it seems strange for the disciples, themselves sons of God, to refer to Jesus as "the Son of God" unless the title were imbued with an authority they themselves did not exist. The use of the definite article is also quite inexplicable unless one considers it to be a unique title.On the Isaiah/Malachi prophecy First of all, even if Mark was incorrect in his interpretation of biblical prophecy, this is not an inconsistency but an error. One must admit that Mark's intent was to prove Christ's divinity using Isaiah as a proof text. Since I have no burden to prove that Mark was not in error but only that he believed Christ to be divine, I have won this debate. Whether Mark was right or wrong is irrelevant.However, my opponent is wrong in his treatment of this passage and I would like to correct his error. First of all, John the Baptist never denies being a prophet, but rather denies being "the Prophet," meaning Jeremiah. As to his denial of being Elijah, Gill's commentary sheds great light on this subject:Wherefore these messengers inquire, that since he had so fully satisfied them that he was not the Messiah, that he would as ingenuously answer to this question, if he was Elias, or not:And he saith, I am not; that is, he was not Elijah the prophet that lived in Ahab's time, and was called the Tishbite; for John's answer is to the intention of their question, and their own meaning in it, and is no contradiction to what Christ says of him, Matthew 11:14 that he was the Elias that was to come; for he was the person meant by him in Malachi 4:5 though not in the sense the Jews understood it; nor is it any contradiction to what the angel said to Zacharias, Luke 1:17 for he does not say that John should come in the body, but in the power and spirit of Elias.(5)On Jesus' forgiveness of sinsI will concede that this is not a good proof text.On Jesus' use of the title "Lord of the Sabbath"I would like to quote John MacArthur on this topic: Clearly then, from Genesis 2 and verse 3, the Sabbath was ordained by God. It is God Himself who is the Lord of the Sabbath, Lord meaning sovereign. It is God Himself who is the sovereign over the Sabbath who rules over the Sabbath, who defines the Sabbath... To claim then to be Lord of the Sabbath was essentially to claim to be God. And anyone who does that is either God or a blasphemer of the rankest kind. And there really is no middle ground. You cannot say of Jesus that He was a good teacher who got a little bit carried away with certain things, He is either God as He claimed to be, or He is the supreme blasphemer. You don't have any option in the middle.(6) Simply because I, as a Christian, do not consider myself to be under the civil and dietary laws of Old Testament Israel, does not mean that I am Lord of the Law. To say that I am would border on blasphemy (if it didn't cross the line entirely), just as Jesus' saying that he is the Lord of the Sabbath would be blasphemy were he not God.On Mark's reference to Jesus as LordI will also concede this point. However, I would like to point out to Con that his statement is somewhat imprecise. Mark 16:9-20 is not present in the earliest complete manuscripts.(7)Responses to Con's examples of inconsistenciesOn Jesus and the fig treeAgain, it is patently absurd to believe that a grown man living in an agrarian society would not know in which season trees bore their fruit. But regardless, Christian orthodoxy teaches that Jesus sometimes limited his supernatural attributes while on earth, including his omniscience. Even if Jesus truly did not know, no violence is done to the doctrine of his deity.On the teachings of the greatest commandmentI am confused as to what inconsistency Con is saying exists between the following two passages:"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment."—Mark 12:30 "Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'"—Matt. 22-37The great commandment is unnecessary in the sense that it is not essential to the Christian faith. It is, of course, important. But is Luke's omission of it an inconsistency? Certainly not. If I were to write a biography about President Obama's childhood and you wrote one about his political career would they be inconsistent? Of course not. They would simply be focusing on different things. Also, it is unfair to expect the gospel writers to have written down every detail of Jesus' life and teaching. John himself said that "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."(8) I look forward to Con's rebuttal.Sources1. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...2. ibid.3. Robertson, Archibald Thomas. 1997. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 1997. Cedar Rapids, IA: Parsons Technology.4. Psalm 2:75. http://biblehub.com...6. http://www.gty.org...7. http://en.wikipedia.org...8. John 21:25