Joshua is a wonderful writer; I was drawn into his story and I empathized with his horrifying dentist's experiences and I loved his humor.
Now as far as his (possible NDE/drug-induced hallucination?), there are aspects of it (as the author would be the first to point out) that make it seem questionable whether he truly met and conversed with God. It is such a mixture of elements from Judeo-Christian heritage (divine council, Adam and Eve, the incarnation of Jesus) with more progressive and new-agey stuff.
Now, some of the crazier stuff said, did bring to mind how the main reason why the things I believed while growing up from the bible didn’t seem nuts, was familiarity.
As I have grown older, the pieces I have, the evidence (that seems legitimate to me) that lies on the table, are so hard to put together in any coherent or seemingly reasonable whole. To use an analogy, I have gone from the sensible Newtonian world to that of the quantum world. All in all, as someone who does not think materialists are correct in asserting there is nothing but matter and finding myself convinced that a spiritual realm may exist (in part due to stories like this one), and believing that, if there is a God, this being must largely be hands-off while occasionally interacting in ways, and thinking that maybe God is far more bizarre, wild and morally ambiguous then I’d like, and that all holy books are largely humanities flawed attempts to figure it all out, for better and worse, then who knows, maybe the Grisetti did met God and ultimately reality is like this. Our bizarro world may have a bizarro explanation—like somehow, after the incarnation, God turned himself into a particle that is in us all and helps to direct us after we die.
The book made me wonder what questions I’d ask God If he would actually directly answer me. It would be frightful being put on the spot. There are lot of curiosities, especially since the “bible says so” isn’t enough to settle otherwise unknowable doctrines, like it was early in life. For one, it often isn’t clear and even coherent to say the Bible says so, as it is a chorus of differing voices and often lost context and word choice makes interpretation ambiguous, and even if it did clearly say something, that doesn’t automatically mean they are right, or eliminate the fact that another author disagrees with them. Anyhow, it does not work as a “stop the argument" authority on what is true. Anyhow, in light of this, I guess I would be curious, is there any truth to the components of the gospel, if so, how the hell does an innocent man’s murder result in atonement? To what extent, if any, did God inspire the texts that became scripture? Then I’d want to know what happens after death, and if I am right about universalism. I’d be curious to learn what God’s interaction (if any) is with the world, whether God is morally good, how it all came to be, and how to explain the evidence of humanity and animals' origins.
It is sad that, if there is a God, he has no way to convince a skeptic of existence, for no matter how real something is in our experience, we can assume it is merely a hallucination.
A few side notes, I liked the last chapter as the author wrestles with what to make of his experience, and considers ways his subconscious may have generated parts, but how other aspects are harder to explain away. I like how he recognized the differences between his experience and a lot of drug trips, and how many aspects of the journey mirror what some people experience in near-death experiences. Due to themes common to people the world over who almost die, it really does seem legit to allow their common experiences to shape my theology.
As far as Paul being the anti-Christ railed against by John in Revelation, that seems unlikely, as it seems Nero is being referred to, that said, some scholars do think the author of Revelation HATED Paul and he may be negatively referenced in the letters to the churches. Knowing Paul’s vicious hatred of the Judaizers and just how much they hated Paul and how revelation would then continue to be used to demonize “heretics”, I would not put it past John to call Paul the anti-Christ—Paul would no doubt return the favor.