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

Quick note, anything in quotations and italics “like this” are Pro’s statements from the previous round. Below I will be addressing Pro’s contentions from round 1:“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. ”Pro has an interesting view on this on this topic. I’m not sure how many Christians subscribe to his type of reasoning. Neither am I sure this is the best motion for us to debate since he has already confirmed the first part of my argument, that the gospels are inconsistent in regards to Jesus, the second part being, the inconsistencies render the Gospels unreliable. So my first question to Pro is, while he believes the New Testament contains man made errors, does he consider the gospels as reliable documents on Jesus’ life? If so, how? “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. ” Mark’s gospel is by far the shortest one and the ‘suffering messiah’ theme is present in his writing. But Jesus is more clearly a prophet than a deity in the book, in fact in a passage of Mark he clearly distinguished himself from God by refusing to be called good and referred to God as the only Good (10:18). “Evidences of Christ's divinity in Mark” Pro has provided a list of evidences which he claims prove Christ’s divinity in Mark’s gospel. Before I start to address them, I would like to point out that it is only logical to prove the reliability of the gospels before dealing with the matter of Jesus’ divinity. Any evidence to prove a case must first be provided from a source which is reliable and trustworthy. Dealing with Pro’s evidences:a. Many called Jesus ‘Son of God’ in the Mark. This isn’t an argument which holds any water. We know of course that many other prophets have been recognised as ‘Son of God’ in the Old Testament, so much so that ‘as many led by the spirit of God are the Sons of God’ (Romans 8:14). b. It is true, Mark opens his Gospel by referring to an Isaiah/Malachi prophecy and identifies John the baptist as the ‘messenger’ spoken of and Jesus as the ‘Lord’. But the the prophecy is unfullfilled in the New Testament. Malachi 4:5 identifies Elijah as the messenger/prophet to prepare the way for the Lord. John the baptist denied he was the Elijah mentioned of in the Old Testament (John 1:21), he even denied to be a prophet. Mark got the Isaiah/Malachi prophecy wrong. Thus another inconsistency, Jesus’ divinity cannot be proven from this prophecy. c. Jesus forgave sins in Mark 2:5, does that imply divinity? Based on verse 5 alone it might do, but it’s not as simple as Pro explains it. Jesus gives his reason for forgiving a few verses later, “that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins”. This is his reason, from which another question arises, from where did he get the power? Was it his own or given? The answer lies in another Gospel. John 17:6-8, states that everything that he has been given were from God. John 5:30 confirms that he is helpless by himself. Also not forgetting Matthew 28:18, it says all authority was given to Jesus, given by who? God of course as we read in John 17:6-8. There are other verses like these and they all clearly confirm his powers were given by God. So we can see by cross checking between different gospels, forgiving sins doesn’t prove Jesus’ deity. d. Jesus referred to himself as ‘Lord of the Sabbath’ (Mark 2:28). I have three contentions to mention as to why I believe this doesn’t give Jesus a God-status. 1. One can simply argue ‘Lord of the sabbath’ is merely a title like Abraham was the ‘Friend of God’. Abraham’s title didn’t mean every other prophet were enemies of God, similar with Jesus’. 2. 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. 3. The Jews would throw stones to hit Jesus with whenever they thought they heard him utter blasphemy i. e. claiming to be God, this is apparent in the gospels. However on this occasion they did not stone him nor accuse him of blasphemy. Again by cross checking between different gospels we can see this title doesn’t validate Pro’s claim of Jesus’ divinity in Mark. Quick note, Pro does not subscribe to the view of Jesus’ image been evolved to divinity though the gospels, rather he believes the divinity of Christ exists in all four gospels, I have therefore seen no problem in cross-checking between different gospels to prove his evidences of Jesus' divinity in Mark wrong. e. Mark 16:19 where Jesus is referred to as ‘Lord’ is problematic simply due to the fact that it’s part of a section of verses (9-20) which are nonexistent in the earliest manuscripts[1]. This means they most probably were later insertions and therefore not the original writings of Mark. “Responses to Con’s examples of inconsistency”The story of the fig tree. Pro argues that it is illogical to believe Jesus would not have known the season in which trees grew fruit in his thirties. If he was God then yes it would be illogical, but as a human error on Jesus’ part it is perfectly valid no matter how improbable it may seem. Mark 11:13 clearly states that he went to ‘find out’ if the tree had any figs and he didn’t find any because it wasn’t the season. It is obvious from this passage of course Jesus didn’t know the season. This story was then revised by Matthew (21:18) and written in more of an ambiguous sense by not identifying if it was the season, and so allows much more room for interpretation, whereas Mark’s account is strict and rightfully limits Jesus as a human who was mistaken of the season. Pro says the the differences and alteration and edits I have pointed out throughout the gospels are merely errors and do not harm orthodox Christology. Whether they are errors by mistake or intention, they are still differences which haunt and question orthodox Christology. Here’s an example of why, addressing someone as teacher or rabbi isn’t the same as addressing them as Lord, the latter means something totally different to what is meant by ‘teacher’. When Jesus teaches people about the first commandment. Of this incident we see three different contradicting accounts in three gospels. In Mark, Jesus teaches the first commandment to be of the Lord being one God. In Matthew it’s different, the first commandment is to love God with all heart and soul. In Luke's account Jesus didn’t teach the first commandment. I ask Pro how he see’s these three differing accounts as simple errors and justify them as unnecessary details which writers chose to leave out. Does he consider the first comandment an unnecessary detail? With all these biblical ‘errors’ and contradictions which Pro has conceded as he says, how does he then believe the gospels present and accurate or reliable case for Jesus’ divinity I must ask? . How many errors and contradictions have we found in the gospels and how many more will we find? If the foundation of what you present is weak i. e. the gospels, how do you expect whatever you present to be of any validity? So I after thoroughly analysing Pro’s argumentations, I conclude that he 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’ve shown the differences and inconsistencies I have listed from the gospels in round 1 are not merely insignificant errors as Pro says, but of great importance, because on an evidential basis consistency is crucial and a foundation. I am eager to hear Pro’s answer to my first question, while he believes the New Testament contains man made errors, does he consider the Gospels as reliable documents on Jesus’ life? If so, how? 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, I believe it will be an interesting one which will help us dig deeper in the subject matter. . .. [1] New International Version 2004 edition