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

So as we narrow down nearing the end of this debate, it is apparent that Pro has chosen a less effective and much simpler method of response in round 3. I say ‘less effective’ because it is the best description for what he has done. He has summarised and taken out of context what I responded with in Round 3, some of which I shall point out throughout this round. He has only responded to three of my contentions from the previous round which is why I’m rather dissatisfied. “I shall not rebut my opponent's now irrelevant statements from R3. If anyone, including Con, is interested in hearing my response to them, please send me a private message. ”I am interested in hearing Pro’s response, but not in private. I would like him to address them here in this debate. I believe it is unfair to the time scope and beyond the rules on which this debate is formatted to profess having a response available elsewhere. If Pro has any responses to my contentions (I disagree on Pro’s description “irrelevant statements”) he must address them, otherwise concede them. “It is clear from Pro's resolution and his opening statement that it is the consistency of the gospels that we are arguing, not their reliability. I urge the voters to hold my opponent to his resolution. ”It is obvious which parts of my introduction (round 1) Pro wishes to address and which parts he ignores. Regardless of in which paragraph I've challenged the reliability of the gospels, the challenge is there in the introduction, so to highlight the severities of the inconsistencies of which we have been debating. But the interesting part here is, while Pro denies it is his burden to prove the reliability of the gospels, he took the burden. In round 2 Pro wrote “I do consider the gospels to be a reliable narrative of Jesus' life. I will explain why within my actual rebuttals. ” and if we read carefully, it led Pro to explain “It was the overall message that was of primary importance to the gospel writers, not complete accuracy in minor details. ” My reply to the this was in round 3, I wrote ‘My case I have presented so far isn’t regarding the overall message. I am arguing that the writers of these 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. ’ and if something isn’t consistent and accurate then it definitely isn’t reliable. Logically speaking. Quick note: Pro has managed to contradict himself during the course of this debate. In round 2 Pro wrote “Minor discrepancies within the biblical text do not make it an unreliable or inconsistent source. ” later in round 3 he wrote “Granted, there are inconsistencies within the New Testament. ” Pro seems confused on the topic of inconsistency. I shall provide a brief definition of it later in this round. “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. ”Yes, this is exactly what we’re debating. Pro has provided his evidences to prove Mark’s portrayal of Jesus to be divine, which I have given further refutations in round 3. Pro so far has left them unanswered. Also the the inconsistencies/differences I’ve highlighted throughout my introduction, into round 2 and 3 show how Jesus’ image has evolved and portrayed closer to a divine nearer to the latest gospels. “And here we reach the ultimate weakness in Con's arguments. Having admitted that Mark affirms Jesus' divinity, he has technically already admitted defeat. ”This is Pro’s response to only half of a paragraph I wrote in round 3, he failed to quote the second part of the paragraph and thus summarised my position out of context. Here is the second part to which I would like to read Pro’s response, ‘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. ’ I believe I given sufficient reasoning here to clarify my position on Mark’s gospel so far. What is inconsistency? ‘If two statements, etc. are inconsistent, or one is inconsistent with the other, they cannot both be true because they give the facts in a different way. ’ - Oxford Advanced Learner’s DictionaryJust like Luke’s (22:40) contradiction to Mark’s (12:28) and Matthew’s (22:35-36) account of the first commandment and Matthew Mark’s. Pro incorrectly insist these are simple omissions and not inconsistencies. I believe I have proven these to be inconsistencies and contradictions in the previous round, to which Pro has no reply as of yet. Such inconsistencies, contradictions and ‘omissions’ give rise to some important questions, why did Luke contradict Mark and Matthew? Why did Matthew omit the Jewish Shema ‘Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord’ from his writing (22:37) when it was clearly present in Mark’s (12:29)? I argue, Matthew and Luke made improvements/changes to reduce Jesus’ emphasis on one God as he says ‘our God’ and to allow room in their writings to interpret Jesus as divine. I wonder what Pro’s response this would be? .. .I hope I've 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.