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

I would like to open by thanking my opponent for challenging me to a debate on this very interesting topic.Con opened by advocating the theory of Markan Priority, or that the Gospel of Mark was written before the other three gospels. I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject of biblical manuscripts to be able to refute such a claim, nor do I have any desire to try to refute it. I also believe, as Con does, that the New Testament contains errors. Although I am a Christian, I consider biblical inerrancy to be an indefensible man-made doctrine.What I do contest is that Mark presented a Christological system in which Jesus Christ was merely a man or a prophet and that later gospel writers then ascribed deity to Christ through insertions and deletions.The audience of the gospelsMany biblical scholars believe that the gospels were each written to a different audience, explaining why different aspects of the earthly ministry of Christ are more heavily emphasized by each authors.MatthewAudience: JewsPerspective: Jesus as the Messiah, the King of the JewsMarkAudience: RomansPerspective: Jesus as the suffering servantLukeAudience: GentilesPerspective: Jesus as the savior of all mankindJohnAudience: All of mankindPerspective: Jesus as God incarnate(1)Evidences that Mark was writing for a Roman audience include:1. His omission of Jewish genealogies, which would have been of little interest to the Romans2. His care to describe Jewish places and customs3. His use of Roman rather than Jewish time4. His translation of some words into Latin(2)If there was anything that the militaristic Romans understood, it was power and duty. This is why Mark focuses on Jesus' role as the suffering servant. The Romans would have little understanding of Jesus' role as the Messiah or as the Hebrew God incarnate. Mark tried to win the Romans to Christ by presenting the side of Jesus that they would best relate to to them.Evidences of Christ's divinity in MarkAll of this is not to say that Mark does not present the divine side of Christ, as my opponent has claimed. Let's look at some of the ways that Jesus' divinity is apparent in Mark.Evidence #1 - Mark opens his gospel by referring to Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God(3)Evidence #2 - Mark references an Isaiah/Malachi prophecy that identifies Jesus as GodIn the opening chapter of his gospel, Mark cites an Isaiah prophecy, saying "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: 'Behold, I am sending my messenger ahead of you; he will prepare your way. A voice of one crying out in the desert: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.’"(4) Mark does this to identify John the Baptist as the messenger spoken of.(5)A Malachi prophecy parallels the Isaiah verses quoted by Mark, saying "'I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,' says the Lord Almighty."(6) Thus the messenger (whom Mark identifies as John) precedes God himself. The Isaiah passage confirms this: “Prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”(7)Evidence #3 - A voice from heaven calls Jesus his beloved Son(8)Evidence #4 - Jesus forgave sins, something that only God has the authority to doJesus forgave the sins of a paralytic, which the scribes said was blasphemy.(9) The scribes rightly understood that the forgiveness of sins was for God to perform.(10)Evidence #5 - Jesus referred to himself as Lord of the Sabbath(11)Evidence #6 - Many evil spirits call Jesus the Son of God and he does not rebuke them(12)Evidence #7 - A voice from a cloud refers to Jesus as his beloved Son(13)Evidence #8 - When asked "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" Jesus replies that he is(14)Evidence #9 - Mark refers to Jesus as "the Lord Jesus" at the end of his gospel(15)Responses to Con's examples of inconsistencyA through C are simple errors where words or phrases are missing or mistaken. They are quite possibly copyist errors or perhaps just lapses of memory or hearing on the part of the gospel writers. They are not significant.The two verses cited in D have the same essential meaning. There is no real inconsistency here. Again, insignificant copyist or author error.In response to E, saying that there was no fruit on the tree because it was not the proper season is not the same as saying that Jesus did not know it was not the proper season. This is most likely just one of the many extraneous details that Mark put into his writing (e.g., the people sat on "green grass").(16) It is illogical to believe that Jesus would not have known in what season trees grew their fruit by the time that he was in his thirties.F is just a listing of a few more examples of what could be either errors or an example of the gospel writers leaving details that they felt were unnecessary. Either way, they do nothing to harm orthodox Christology. If anything, they are simply weak arguments for New Testament errancy, which I have already conceded.I look forward to reading Con's response.Sources1. http://davidsonpress.com...2. http://www.lifeofchrist.com...3. Mark 1:14. Mark 1:2-35. Mark 1:46. Malachi 3:17. Isaiah 40:38. Mark 1:119. Mark 2:5-710. Isaiah 43:2511. Mark 2:2812. Mark 3:1113. Mark 9:714. Mark 14:61-6215. Mark 16:1916. Mark 6:39