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

I shall further deal with Pro’s arguments from the previous round.Pro begins his response with a disclaimer. “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.”Recall from my first round, I concluded it by stating ‘on an evidential basis the differences are there and clear and render Jesus’ image in the gospels inconsistent and therefore unreliable.’ Let me break down this statement and make it easier to understand what exactly I am challenging Pro on. a. The statement clearly points out how I am arguing my case, on an evidential basis, and it is this type of basis I ask my opponent to respond with. But Pro manages to fall into the habit of rebutting my arguments with what can only be described as common interpretations, some of which I shall point out throughout this response. Interpretations will simply remain interpretations until they are proven by evidences. b. I specifically mentioned that the gospels’ inconsistencies render them unreliable. Pro is mistaken to think that my resolution allows him to only prove that the gospels are not inconsistent, rather it burdens him to prove the gospels are consistent in order to prove they’re are reliable.Pro has already admitted the inconsistencies I’ve listed in round 1 are in fact errors and mistakes “I also believe, as Con does, that the New Testament contains errors.” Pro says “If anything, they are simply weak arguments for New Testament errancy, which I have already conceded.” By this admission Pro has confirmed my case that the gospels are inconsistent regarding Jesus. After all, when two individuals mistakenly report an event in two differing ways, that is what is called ‘inconsistency’. “In other words, it was the overall message that was of primary importance to the gospel writers, not complete accuracy in minor details.”I hope it is clear that my case I have presented so far isn’t regarding the ‘overall message’. I am arguing that the writers of the gospels do not portray a consistent and accurate picture of Jesus, i.e. what he said and did and how people saw him to be etc.“In other words, Jesus was asking the man to view him as God, the exact opposite of what Con claimed (regarding Mark 10:18).”It is clearer than daylight, Jesus did not ask the man to view him as God simply because the only question he did ask the man was “why do you call me good?” followed by disclaiming anyone to be good but God alone without stating he is an exception to the rule. How Pro concludes that Jesus was trying prove his divinity by this is astonishing to me I must admit.“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 (regarding Mark 10:18)”This is an example of Pro’s habit of arguing with common interpretations. What or where is the factual basis of what Pro argues here? How does he know Jesus asked this question to “make a point”? Pro isn’t arguing anything evidential here. What is evidential is that Jesus stated no one is good but God alone without stating that he may be exception to the rule. “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"According to Jeremiah 31:9 God refers Himself a father to Israel, a nation of people and Ephraim was His firstborn. From this it is clear the Father/Son of God relationship with God isn’t unique to Jesus in the Bible.“Also, the Christ is uniquely referred to as the "begotten son" of God.” This again is a method of speculation and interpretation to prove Jesus' divinity from this phrase. What is meant by the “only begotten son” can be understood by noticing how Isaac was titled Abraham’s “one and only son” or “only begotten son” in Hebrews 11:17. Not because Isaac was the only son, Abraham had two sons. The Bible uses such titles to glorify or elevate one’s status amongst people like Isaac and similarly Jesus’ the “only begotten son”.Quick note: This statement of the begotten son is in John 3:16 and not in Mark. Reminder to Pro that he is trying to prove Jesus’ divinity in Mark specifically.“One must admit that Mark's intent was to prove Christ's divinity using Isaiah as a proof text.” That may be so, but let me explain my position on Mark’s gospel further. Mark may have had the intent to prove Jesus’ divinity by using the Malachi/Isaiah prophesy. However, I hope it is clear I am not arguing Mark’s personal interpretation of who Jesus was. Rather, I'm arguing that Mark’s portrayal of Jesus (i.e. what Jesus said, did and how people saw him etc.) isn’t divine at all. 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.“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.”Apologies for this error, John the baptist did indeed deny being “the Prophet” and not a prophet. Though I disagree still that it refers to another prophet, I shall leave it at that. Proving this won't benefit nor harm my argument that he already denied to be Elijah (John 1:21). Gill’s commentary is an interpretation one can take but there is no “spirit or power” mentioned in Malachi, 4:5 is specific by stating “Elijah the Prophet” will be sent. Definite article. The Jews were right in understanding that Elijah should come in body.“On Jesus' use of the title "Lord of the Sabbath" Does mean Jesus is divine? Recall my contentions on this issue from round 2, Pro does not attempted to tackle any of them here rather, he writes about how blasphemous it is to claim such a thing, of which I have refuted - as a human, Jesus had the right to break the sabbath according to the new testament. Matthew 28:18 says all authority has been given to him. “Again, 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.” Absurd as it may seem, I ask pro is it logically an impossibility?“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.”Another question, where is this specific teaching in the Bible? That Jesus had the ability to “limited his supernatural attributes while on earth”. Unless pro can provide evidence of this from the Bible, this another example of Pro arguing his case with a common interpretation.“I am confused as to what inconsistency Con is saying exists between the following two passages.” In round 2, Pro quotes Mark’s (12:30) and Matthew’s (22:37) accounts of the first commandment and asks where the inconsistency lies. Pro should re-read Mark’s account and he will see in fact Jesus teaches the first commandment from verse 29 which states “And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.” then verse 30 “And 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.” The first part of Jesus’ answer which is ‘Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord’, isn't in Matthew’s account of the story. This is the inconsistency, Matthew saw fit to edit this part out.“But is Luke's omission of it an inconsistency?”Luke’s account isn’t a simple case of omission as Pro says. Luke 22:40 clearly states that no one ‘dared’ to ask Jesus anymore questions. This is a clear contradiction compared to Mark’s (12:28) and Matthew’s (22:35-36), because in these accounts someone did ask a question, about the first commandment. This is an inconsistency.So I conclude for this round, Pro is yet to succeed in proving the gospels are consistent and reliable regarding Jesus. I hope Pro realises that many of his arguments in round 2 were based on interpretations without any under-lining evidences. 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.I look forward to Pro’s reply, thank you.