Continued research for my next historical novel: Peter and Paul
Below a quote from my book Visualization—Creating your Own Universe.
“All visions are subjective. Subjective religious visions are called Revelations. Subjective non-religious visions (unless held by famous people) are often referred to as hallucinations. Hallucinations can be subdivided into artistic, political, social, idealistic, and a whole array of inspired non-religious fantasies, delusions or insights.”
The problem is: Who is to decide which is which?
If I am right in my analyses, what should we think about Paul’s contribution to Christianity? Would he and Peter invariably agree?
Or could there have been a profound schism in their thinking? Historical novels are not as simple as I thought they would be. Not if one is to deliver the truth… as best one can.
And yet… did not Yeshûa’s gnosis come essentially from within? Doesn't all gnosis?
Historical novels are not only difficult, they are fascinating!