He's strongly former Christian, and while he's a very good scholar, especially in his popular works he's not necessarily all that balanced in his approach. His academic works are known to be more balanced, but being academic aren't as accessible to the average reader.
Here's the response to Ehrman link. How God became Jesus
It's really what we always should do, investigate and read both, even multiple sides of an issue.
“How God Became Jesus”
https://www.amazon.com/How-God-Became-Jesus-Nature/dp/0310519594/
Ah, so a quick overview of refutations are here
One book for that is How God became Jesus
Any primary sources for that? Check out Carm.org, they've got quite a few things, I think you would find interesting. https://carm.org/evidence-and-answers ,check How God Became Jesus out. It's a book that actually provides evidence for Jesus, and His resurrection.
Bowman wrote: This one God is the single divine being known in the OT as Jehovah or Yahweh (“the LORD”).
Put simply: Bowman was just saying how Yahweh was translated. I was wondering how long you were going to chase your tail on this one!!!
>If you would like to give an example of something Ehrman giot wrong feel free. Be specific.
I gave you specific verses on how where the Bible reveals that Jesus shares the honors due to God, Jesus shares the attributes of God, Jesus shares the names of God, Jesus shares in the deeds that God does, Jesus shares the seat of God's throne. All of those you just ignore.
As well as the one where the Holy Spirit is called God. The one where you say it is "figurative" but never, even when explicitly asked, say why one should come to that conclusion. Which you continue to ignore
So sure I'll show what Ehrman got wrong, just so you can ignore it as well
For case in point, let’s consider Ehrman’s use of the “criterion of dissimilarity,” which on his account dictates that a given unit in the Gospels is historically authentic if “it is dissimilar to what the early Christians would have wanted to say about him.” This criterion is well-known and has received a devastating barrage of criticism to the point that I am, to be frank, at a loss as to why Ehrman continues to use it. In extreme cases some scholars looked for a double dissimilarity, whereby a tradition is authentic when it is dissimilar to both Judaism and to the early church. Ehrman wisely uses it in its less extreme form and only applies it to dissimilarity from the early church.
But even then it verges on the ludicrous. Think about it. A story about Jesus or as a saying attributed to Jesus is only historical if it does not sound anything like what the church was saying about Jesus. What historian would say that the historical Plato is different from what the platonic school said about Plato? Who would say that reliable information about the Teacher of Righteousness who founded a community by shores of the Dead Sea can only to be found when material attributed to him in the Dead Sea Scrolls sound nothing like the Dead Sea Scrolls? Who thinks that the real John Wesley can only be retrieved by searching for un -Wesleyan things that Wesleyans said about John Wesley?
The criterion of dissimilarity posits a huge rupture between a movement founder and his or her subsequent movement that is simply absurd. You end up with a Jesus who said, thought, and did nothing that his earliest followers believed that he said, thought, and did. Jesus becomes a free-floating iconoclast artificially insulated from the movement that took its name from him, claimed to follow his teachings, and memorialized his deeds and actions.
No wonder, then, that the criterion of dissimilarity has been near universally abandoned and replaced with something far more credible , like a criterion of historical plausibility. We can regard a unit in the Gospels as claiming a high degree of historical authenticity when a saying or event attributed to Jesus makes sense within Judaism (i.e., plausible context) and also represents a starting point for the early church (i.e., a plausible consequence). Rather than try to drain the theological dross from the historical silver in the Gospels through several fallible criteria, more recently scholars have been interested in the application of social memory research to the study of the historical Jesus.
In other words, how did the things Jesus said and did create a memory in his followers, a memory that was faithfully transmitted, yet also refracted according to the theological framework that the early church was developing. In which case, we cannot hope to penetrate the impregnable bedrock of the church’s interpretation and proclamation of Jesus found in the Gospels and discover a deeper layer of historically accurate data laid beneath.
At the end of the day the best way to read the Gospels responsibly and historically is to narrate the story of Jesus in a way that has realism and explanatory power — a story that makes Jesus fit plausibly into his Jewish context, that brings all of the sources together, that explains the shape and direction of the early church, and that accounts for why and how the Gospels are what they are. Allison again puts it well: *As historians of the Jesus tradition we are storytellers. We can do no more than aspire to fashion a narrative that is more persuasive than competing narratives, one that satisfies our aesthetic and historical sensibilities because of its apparent ability to clarify more data in a more satisfactory fashion than its rivals. Ehrman’s entire approach to historical Jesus studies does not commend itself as a good way of doing history. source
So go ahead and ignore this as well, it is your best tactic.
>Which make you wrong. Yahweh does not mean "Lord."
Ha ha ha, No, it means you misunderstood Bowman's point!
> Read Ehrman's How Jesus Became God.
Been there, done that. Read How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature---A Response to Bart D. Ehrman to see what Erhman got wrong.
Or How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus '
or Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture's Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ
>Because the Bible often call things "God" figuratively that are not God, including kings (for example in Psalm 45:6-7 or the coronation song in Isaiah 9) and the Angel of the Lord in Exodus 3:2-4. In John 10:34, Jesus quotes Psalm 182:
And if you'd actually read Bowman you'd see these have been addressed.
>If you haven't read the book, how do you know you've seen his arguments elsewhere?
As I said, I've seen parts of his book referenced, and read the title. I've heard others claim that Jesus did not believe Himself to be God, but I've seen just as many claims to the contrary.
>here may be some disagreement, but the basis of his argument is considered fact by scholars
Did or did not Jesus believe Himself to be divine? I would think if there was a wide a consensus on that question as you state, Wikipedia probably wouldn't say this. Here is one article that goes into depth debating one of the basis of Erhman's claims. There is an entire book devoted to rebutting Ehrman's claims. So, if one wants to claim Jesus did not believe Himself to be divine, you would not find a scholarly consensus.
>As for my argument, it was more than simply one sentence. I pointed out the reasoning for my argument, which is a historical argument. As I argue, Jesus is first seen as a religious leader, and eventually is said to be God. So Jesus eventually becomes God.
There are good reasons to believe this, but many other good reasons to not. You can not claim this definitively.