Talk:Dionysius the Areopagite

Name Day: 10/03.

Untitled

This article is about Dionysius the Areopagite, the character in the book of Acts. Putting detailed descriptions here of the mystical writings incorrectly attributed to him will only confuse people. Please put any material about the writings in the article: Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. --Blainster 21:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any credible sources that substantiate the claim that Dionysius is, in fact, a patron saint "against demons," but it is definitely true that Hellboy claims that he is. Perhaps another confusion with Saint Denis, the patron saint of France? I'll be here all week. Hansonfan (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction with Other Wiki Page

On the D. Bishop of Corinth page, it is reported that "Dionysius spoke of the recent martyrdom of their bishop, Publius (in the persecution of Marcus Aurelius), and says that Dionysius the Areopagite was the first Bishop of Athens." First, there. Second here (as well as the Wiki list of Bishops).

I hesitate to make any changes. Just FYI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.231.155 (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Confusing finishing paragraphs

The whole story of the eclipse confuses the reader -- what is the purpose of adding it to the article. What difference does it make if the author of the article, or notoriously anti-Christian Valla, or a German person writing his introduction deem Dionysius' letter credible or not? The letter is actually stating that the eclipse was indeed happening out of its time. In lack of argument it might suffice to say that the letter's credibility is sometimes contested, might it not? 110.164.162.168 (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolving the apparent contradiction

See Rudolf Steiner's lectures of October 08, 1905 (Foundations of Esotericism – Lecture 13), or June 02, 1921. Here the distinction between Dionysius and pseudo-Dionysius is explained from investigating the Akashic records.

Instruction about the Gods was first systematised by Dionysius the Areopagite, the pupil of the apostle Paul. It was however not written down until the 6th century. This is why scholars deny the existence of Dionysius the Areopagite and speak about the writings of the Pseudo-Dionysius, as though it was in the 6th century that old traditions were first put together. The truth of the matter can only be substantiated by reading in the Akashic Chronicle. The Akashic Chronicle does however teach that Dionysius actually lived in Athens, that he was initiated by Paul and was commissioned by him to lay the foundation of the teaching about the higher spiritual beings and to impart this knowledge to special initiates. At that time certain lofty teachings were never written down but only communicated as tradition by word of mouth. The teaching about the Gods was also given in this way by Dionysius to his pupils, who then passed it on further. These pupils in direct succession were intentionally called Dionysius, so that the last of these, who wrote down this teaching was one of those who was given this name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.178.54.84 (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting. The article would greatly benefit, imho, from a summary like this with reference to Steiner's work. The question of things being published, written down, or transmitted orally is a large part of the history of esotericism, because esoteric writers are so often writing form a select rather than a general audience, and context is important to esoteric meanings. You "had to be there," in at least a metaphorical sense.

This is something that Wikipedia as a culture has difficulty with, and all too often instead they cap labels on sources and ban their mention. Your account makes perfect sense to me, for it explains the reason for the confusions that are manifest in this article and in the discussions of the two men of the name but in different centuries. In this case I would that oral tradition was supplemented with writings of various sorts brought together and codified by "pseudo" Dionysius.

73.132.250.25 (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Akashic records are rank pseudohistory. Or "cult pseudoscience" as Dan Dugan has put it. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced section relating the Virgin Mary

The section of biography relating to the Virgin Mary appears to be quoting from something, but it is not clear whether this is an ancient source (and, if so, which) or a much later, possibly modern fictional saint's life. If it is sourceable, the source needs quoting. Otherwise it should be deleted.Martin Turner (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image is wrong

The image in the infobox is of St Denis of Paris (with Rusticus and Eleutherius). Wrong century. Wrong cause of death. St Denis's article acknowledges the two were once confused. Why is the image here? 2601:181:301:81A0:69DA:D50D:98EE:A558 (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this has been fixed and the current image is correct. Spartacus007 (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Anne Catherine Emmerich

If you want to WP:CITE her, then cite her under a section entitled Mysticism. But definitely not in a section about the Bible and definitely not in a section dealing with real-world history. Emmerich-Brentano did not write WP:SCHOLARSHIP, they wrote mysticism. As historiography and Bible scholarship it's just garbage. To put it otherwise, her writings are WP:RS for her own views only (and even that much has been challenged), but not for objective historical facts about the ancient history. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)