Bart Ehrman and Trinitarians Are Overly Confident (at best) About The "I AM" Statements.

 Responding to this video.
 Time index: 27:00

When Ehrman says the book of John has Jesus calling himself God, ...

I recognize this as leftover from when he was a fundamentalist Christian. Nowhere in that book is such an idea even hinted at; except after a later Christian church (or their cultural influence) installs those goggles. The so-called "I AM" statements of Jesus are a great example of this. According to Christine Hayes (who would know more about this than Ehrman would), it is absolutely not certain that any name was given there. Neither is any particular rendering certain.

[When I have time, I'll re-watch this entire lecture, to provide timestamps where she addresses this]   It's possible to render that verse to mean that this deity was refusing to give any name. It's also possible to render in several other ways where it's something like "I shall cause to become" or "I shall prove to be who I shall prove to be", or "I am the one who causes things to become". Qualified scholars are MUCH less certain about it than most popular translators apparently felt. Brenton Septuagint Translation renders the (possibly-implied) name in the OT as "THE BEING". Coverdale Bible of 1535 God saide vnto Moses: I wyl be what I wyll be. And he sayde: Thus shalt thou saye vnto ye children of Israel: I wyl he hath sent me vnto you. Tyndale Bible of 1526 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you. The only reason most modern Bibles render it as "I AM" in Exodus, is because modern translators wanted to create an opportunity of correlation. That way Jesus can later say something that sounds like he's dropping Holy Hints that he's the God of the OT. Unwittingly, Ehrman is buying into it. He's invoking the circular reasoning that justifies the "I AM" renderings. Now, if Ehrman wants to argue that some of the powers Jesus articulated are things that only as deity could do (per the theocratic biases of people in that region at that time), ... then that's a whole other matter. In that case, it's not really the "I AM" statements that are at-issue; but rather what comes after. It would still be a weak case to make. But let's not conflate that type of argument with the alleged "I AM" statements that (in modern Bibles) precede mention of godlike things being done. Also, if Jesus (or the writer) wanted "I AM" to mean "God" in the mind of listeners, then that text automatically translates as "Before Abraham God". It does NOT translate as "Before Abraham, I AM GOD", because it does not say "ego eimi" twice in a row. It only says it once. The reader accidentally mentally reads it twice. That's what creates the textual illusion. If we decide to make "ego eimi" mean "God", we still only have "Before Abraham, God". Before Abraham did what? When read in a modern translation, it seems to mean "existed". Ehrman reads it that way. Abraham existed. If we decide that the writer of John was comparing Abraham to God, then: In context, it means "God existed" (before Abraham). So we have "Before Abraham existed, God existed". In other words, "God existed before Abraham". Why would the writer mention that, in that context of that encounter? Jesus' claim of authority is being challenged; because the religious leaders felt like he was challenging theirs. His claim that GOD will make all believers immortal ... also gets misunderstood. He never said that every believer who ever existed will never die. He said that only about his present-day believers. They seem to be going out of their way to misunderstand everything he says. But they do have a powerful emotional reason to skew everything. As far as they are concerned, they get their authority from their religion's founders such as Abraham; who, in turn, get their authority from their deity. So who does this Jesus guy think he is, to come in here speaking for (their) deity? According to Jesus, he gets that glory/honor from the same God they do. To support his claim to that honor, he does the same thing all wannabe cult leaders say. Basically, "God authorized me. If you don't believe me, just ask me. I'll vouch for him ... that he vouches for me". It's the same stupid stunt that Saul/Paul later tries (and gets away with). Jesus was such a bad influence. An Iron Age Huckleberry Finn? Perhaps. But not just in how he leads so many young lads astray. I also see a lot of grown ass men white washing in his name.

According to the legends, it all started with the wacky adventures of a greatly misunderstood rebel with a death-wish.

But here we are; with another less than spectacular duel between proudly humble covert narcissists. Here, Jesus tries even harder to support his clam to that honor (glory) of being entitled to speak for their deity; by name-dropping Abraham. Again, they misunderstand him. He doesn't say he ever met Abraham. He says that Abraham lived long enough to see Jesus' "day". Which "day" would that be, exactly? He doesn't say. Although, in his defense, words get harder after so many glasses of "water".

I don't mention this to be cruel; nor even to mock Jesus. I'm sure it was hard for iron agers to self-medicate their respectively pronounced mental illnesses. However, his ramblings could mean that Abraham was still alive at that time; as a spirit. It could also mean that "the day" Jesus was referring to was a metaphor for something that happened when Abraham was still alive. In reply, they ask how it's even possible that ever even met Abraham? They are still misunderstanding him. And like usual, he's still doing a bad job of explaining himself. At this point, Jesus (in the story) says that either: Jesus existed before Abraham OR GOD existed before Abraham (depending on who-or-what the translators or readers think "I am" is referring to). He might have just been reminding them that Abraham came later; AFTER God existed. That would be relevant because Jesus wouldn't need to base his authority on Abraham; just on the God who preceded Abraham. That would mean his authority trumps theirs. Although, the same idea works if Jesus was claiming to be the first created-being (a prime angel, or other type of divine entity) their (favorite) deity created. We'll never know for sure what the writer meant.

Meanwhile, ... Lamsa Bible Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was born, I was. Anderson New Testament Jesus said to them: Verily, verily I say to you, before Abraham came into being, I was. A more mainstream bible (New American Standard Bible; 1995) translates John 3:28 as "I have been". NASB also does the same thing again at John 14:9. So does the KJV. The reason this is acceptable is because "ego eimi" is not specifically present tense. It derives tense from how it's used. So if we don't first assume that it's a Holy Hint for one of the names of their (favored) deity, ... then which tense is actually being supplied? "Before Abraham existed, I exist"? Or "Before Abraham existed, I existed"? It makes no sense to say "I currently exist in the past"; especially in a conversation where the nature or science of time isn't even being discussed [not that they were equipped for having such discussions]. Either way, if he wanted to say "Before Abraham existed, (someone) exists", why offer contradictory chronological tense in one statement? It would make more sense to just say "Actually, I am the God of Abraham"; if that's the answer he was aiming for; which Ehrman, driven by cultural influence, has assumed. Instead, seems to be claiming to be older than Abraham. Although, it's possible that the writer meant "I precede Abraham" in terms of authority. It might not have been a chronological statement at all. He knew Abraham, in the same way those other men knew Abraham; as an established icon of religious authority in their pyramid of power. Their respective claims of authority were a primary issue in that conversation. It would be like this: "How could you know Abraham, when you are not old enough to have ever met him? I know him; as someone who is "before" him. Lesser servants follow. I lead. You do neither. I stand ahead of him. Many follow after. Some, like you, just stand aside and shout." The word "before" is translated from the Greek word "prin" (πρὶν)  
It's an adverb from the word "pro" ( πρό). 

Pro does not always refer to time. 

https://biblehub.com/greek/4253.htm

However, lots of created entities existed before and during when Abraham was alive. That doesn't make them g/God(s).