If I might briefly respond as I believe Bart Ehrman would.
"Thank you for listening to my interview on NPR. Like you I have spent a lot of time in Christian churches and even attended the Evangelical Wheaton College. I have spent my life studying Scripture, however my scholarship has led me to different conclusions.
Your piece seems to rely upon a number of assumptions. First that the Gospel of Mark contains a reliable record of the words of Jesus. That is certainly possible, but tradition attributes Mark's Gospel to the teachings of Peter. It was likely not written until thirty five plus years after the death of Jesus. Jesus taught in Aramaic, Mark wrote in Koine Greek, and you are reading a translation into English. Since the earliest and most reliable manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark don't even include resurrection appearances of Jesus, there is at least room for doubt.
Many of your claims are also built upon assumptions. Many scholars do not believe Jesus claimed to be God in Mark. The Gospel of John appears to have the highest Christology, but it also contains many sayings that are not found in the other Gospels. In the Hebrew Bible many kings and priests were referred to as "Messiahs" or "Anointed Ones." Even Cyrus is called a "Messiah" for Israel.
Furthermore, it is clear that their were many diverse beliefs about Jesus in the early centuries of the Church. Many of the key creeds and doctrines were not "settled" until the fourth century under the guidance of the Roman Imperial state. Greek Orthodox, Coptic Churches, and many early desert fathers strongly resisted Rome's demand for a narrow Orthodoxy.
Finally, we don't know what Jesus thought about himself. We only know how he has been described over the years by canonical and non-canonical gospels and other historical writings such as those found in Josephus. (Fun fact Josephus' dad was on the Sanhedrin during Jesus' ministry.)
For a fuller explanation please read my books, they cover all of this in much greater depth. My textbook, An Historical Introduction to the New Testament might be a nice place to start, but my shorter books are more accessible."
As I final note. I am not Bart Ehrman, I don't agree with everything he says. I made up the response based on my familiarity with his writing and teaching.
As one final note, asserting traditional apologetic defenses of Orthodoxy against modern critical scholarship doesn't prove the skeptic wrong. Ehrman is applying the rules of history and Biblical scholarship in an attempt to describe Jesus and the diverse Christian churches that emerged in the Centuries after him. True skepticism wouldn't just reassert traditional understandings, but show how Ehrman failed as an historian or scholar.
