Jump to content

Talk:Baphomet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hebrew

[edit]

check 84.94.27.22's tinkering with Hebrew characters, someone who knows what they are talking about ;) --1pezguy 05:59, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Goat of Mendes

[edit]

I thought that picture of the seated man-goat was, in fact, the Goat of Mendes, a representation of polarity (essentially a Western equivalent to the yin yang).

Re: Goat of Mendes

[edit]

There are a number of images of Baphomet taken from Templar coffers at About's Gnostic/Hermetic Images - Baphomet page . Each likeness has a consistent theme of polarity. Interesting, no? Alt-o 10:04, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

"pagan or Islamic deity" in lead

[edit]

Some going about in circles in recent edits about how the lead should read... it could be clearer by whom/how/when/where/why Baphomet was thought to be an Islamic deity. At the moment "Some modern scholars such as Peter Partner and Malcolm Barber agree that the name of Baphomet was an Old French corruption of the name Muhammad, with the interpretation being that some of the Templars, through their long military occupation of the Outremer, had begun incorporating Islamic ideas into their belief system, and that this was seen and documented by the Inquisitors as heresy.[10] Peter Partner's 1987 book The Knights Templar and their Myth says, 'In the trial of the Templars one of their main charges was their supposed worship of a heathen idol-head known as a 'Baphomet' ('Baphomet' = Mahomet).'" is the only part that aims at that, but it doesn't quite get there. Шизомби (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The salient point that needs making at the outset is that Baphomet is a Christian phantom: there is no "deity" Baphomet— as the article demonstrates.--Wetman (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, "imagined" goes towards that but could be clearer. I'm asking more about who imagined it to be an Islamic deity, though; the article doesn't really say any Muslims ever worshipped Baphomet. It sort of says scholars believe in retrospect that the Templars may have been a Christian/Islamic syncretistic sect that worshipped Muhammad as a deity under that name, or they were charged with supposedly being and believing that. Шизомби (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did I improve it? I removed the notion that the etymology is unestablished, since it seems established enough: it is a corruption of "Muhammad". I connected the imagined-ness directly to the "deity" and then I clarified that this imagination is found in "Catholic folklore", using Catholic instead of Christian because the Templars were Christians persecuted by the Catholic hierarchy (I don't know if this helped). I am not sure if "folklore" is the best word. Srnec (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's still somewhat unclear. I wonder also if the initial sentence ought also to cover the later Levi use. Шизомби (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, apparently the opening summary already carries as much freight as it can bear. "Eliphas Levi"'s further inventions do come along in chronological progression, making the career of this phantom progressively clear to the attentive reader.--Wetman (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's a altered version of abraxas and cernunno they're all the same 2600:1700:7A7C:CFB0:59EE:B03B:F6DE:17BD (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baphomet a modern "Pazuzu"?

[edit]

Is Baphomet a modern version of the sumerian demon Pazuzu? - (compare their arms position and wings) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.100.35 (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

baphomet is a reedited version of abraxas and cernunno....he is the reason they call a dollar a buck 2600:1700:7A7C:CFB0:59EE:B03B:F6DE:17BD (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abraxas as baphomet.

[edit]

Ive seen depiction of abraxas sitting cross legged its same as baphomet. Templars used abraxas aka baphomet on their coins and seals. 2600:1700:7A7C:CFB0:59EE:B03B:F6DE:17BD (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]