Bart would be very surprised to learn he agreed 100% with the WT! No, he has quite clearly discussed how Christian theology grew and evolved. For example, the formulaic Trinity doctrine was arrived at after the majority of the NT was written, however it was an attempt to make sense of the often-contradictory descriptions of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Most scholars understand this.
How can Jesus be the Alpha and Omega and the creator of all things while also be said to have been a 'Son'. How can the HS be said to have its own will and act independently of the Father. In other places Jesus is said to have control of the HS. The Trinity doctrine was a philosophical elegant solution. This is what Erhman teaches. The WT rather ignores the theological differences and dismisses half the texts through convoluted arguments.