Talk:Baphomet/Archive 1

Fertility cult?

 * Baphomet also known in the ancient world as a pagan fertility god demonized and turned into satan by the church, allthough freemasonary readily admits baphomet is indeed a fertility god. Baphomet also takes on a human form in some depictions rather than half human and half beast. In more popular beliefs i.e. satanism baphomet is worshipped as satan.

Please find me a reference, preferably an original source, for the notions that the name Baphomet existed in the ancient world, or that Freemasons actually, as opposed to false claims such as the Taxil hoax, worshipped Baphomet as a fertility god. Smerdis of Tlön 14:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The Templar Connection
Although it is true that Baphomet was mentioned in the Templar confessions, it is recognized by many conventional historians/linguists to be an Old French bastardization of Mohammed, and was not in fact linked to the idols also mentioned in their confessions - see Malcolm Barber, "The New Knighthood." It is also prudent to point out that it was Philip the Fair of France who nominally used the Inquisition, but it was in fact an usurpation of Pope Clement V's authority. After nullifying the French process, Pope Clement V opened two papal proceedings: a trial in the dioceses of Europe to try individual knights (which almost universally found them innocent, save in France) and a general papal inquiry to try the Order as a whole. The general papal inquiry found that although there had been individual abuses, the Order as a whole had not supported or endorsed heretical practices, and in fact supported the maintanance of the Order. But public opinion was so strongly turned against the Order by this time that Clement V suppressed the order (through a Papal Bull - ie, he did not condemn the order, but simply disbanded it on the same authority he had used to sanction it). For a brief summary, one may visit an older reference at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm, or for a more in-depth view again turn to Malcolm Barber's texts on the matter.

Care must be used in any reference to the Knights Templar to distinguish between accepted history and conjectural history - unfortunately, many of the details in this article are of the latter. DonaNobisPacem 06:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in.. but i was surfing and noticed the baphomet pic is the same as the pic for the horned god


 * I have basically copied over the trial details as I had them listed on Talk:Knights Templar....


 * I shall list the facts of the trial, as I have researched them, and we can examine the issue point by point if necessary. My sources are, unless otherwise stated, Malcolm Barber's "The New Knighthood,"  Peter Partner's "Murdered Magicians," and the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia.  Barber was the primary reference; when either Partner or the Encyclopedia were used as reference, I checked the for conflict with Barber's book; if there was conflict, I defaulted to Barber's account.


 * On Friday Oct 13, 1307, Philip IV orders the arrest of the Templars in France (most of whom were elderly, infirm, or serving brothers); this has been planned for a few months. The most likely motivation is desiring the wealth of the Order, but paired with a belief in the Order's heretical practices.  The latter is given weight by the earlier expulsion of the Jews (he seized their wealth, but also believed they were desecrating the host), and his earlier actions against Pope Boniface VIII and Guichard, Bishop of Troyes; he was motivated by the belief the pope and the bishop were heretics.  He was most likely under the influence of William of Nogaret (excommunicated for the kidnapping of Pope Boniface VIII) and other ministers, as well as French nobility who wanted to gain Templar lands and lessen Church authority.  The common strand that runs through all of these events is Philip IV’s belief that he was the saviour of the “true Christianity of the sacred realm of France”  from the heretical and diabolical actions of Boniface VIII, Guichard, the Jews, and lastly the Templars.


 * The justification for the trial was given as the "revelations" of a few members who had lost their habit. The charges included spitting, trampling, or urinating on the cross; while naked, being kissed obscenely by the receptor on the lips, navel, and base of the spine; heresy and worship of idols; institutionalized homosexuality; and also accusations of contempt of the Holy Mass and denial of the sacraments


 * Royal officials, acting nominally under the Inquisition but in reality under the direction of the French crown, began an investigation using torture. In one month of investigations, only 4 of 138 members denied the charges. Including those who confessed were Jacques de Molay, Hugh of Pairaud, the Visitor of the Temple in the West, and Geoffrey of Charney, the Preceptor of Normandy. Within weeks of their arrests Templars were brought into the public to confess to their crimes.  The credibility of the trials is (obviously) dubious, as is made obvious by the confessions of knights such as John of Tour (read the book for more details :) )


 * Objecting to the disregard of his authority, Clement annulled the proceedings, and suspended the powers of the French bishops and their inquisitors. But bowing to public (that part is important) and royal pressure, Clement eventually ordered a general arrest of Templars outside of France.  He then started an investigation: within a month, several leaders recanted their testimonies; the pope stopped proceedings, and the trial stagnated for six months.


 * In June 1308, not too pleased with how things were going, Philip arranged for 72 carefully selected Knights to give testimony before the Pope at Poitier. The Pope was sufficiently worried by their testimony to begin a two-part investigation: one in individual dioceses, to determine the guilt of the individual members of the order, and the other a papal investigation to determine the guilt of the Order as a whole.  These proceeded at a rather slow pace, further aggravating Philip.


 * In February 1310, thirty-two Templars led by Peter of Bologna, the procurator of the Order for the papacy, and Renaud of Provins, mounted an effective defence of the order. Philip IV then arranged for fifty-four Templars who had recanted their earlier admission of guilt to be handed over to secular authorities  and burned as relapsed heretics in dioceses where the bishops largely owed their position to the patronage of the king.  After this, Templars sent before the papal commission were carefully selected by French authorities to be those who had already confessed to heresy in the French proceedings (as evidenced by Templars from the Diocese of Cleremont.


 * Despite the poor defense of the Order, when the papal commission ended its proceedings on June 5, 1311, it found no evidence that the Order itself held heretical doctrines, or used a "secret rule" apart from the Latin and French rules. On October 16, 1311, at the General Council of Vienne held in Dauphiné, the council voted for the maintanence of the Order.  At this time, although not all diocesan processes had finished, aside from a few convictions in Italy and the convictions in France, virtually no Templars were convicted of heresy.  In France, the initial confessions, though the process had been annulled, were considered to be established fact; and various sentences of imprisonment were handed out to those considered relapsed or impenitent.  No further Knights were burned, other than Molay and one other upper official.


 * On March 22, 1312, Clement V promulgated the bull Vox in excelsis in which he stated that although there was not sufficient reason to condemn the Order, for the common good, the hatred of the Order by Philip IV, the scandal brought about by their trial, and the likely dilapidation of the Order that was likely to result from the trial, the Order was to be suppressed by the pope’s authority over it.  It is important to note it was not condemned by the Church.


 * This was followed by the bull Ad Providum on May 2, 1312, which granted all of the Order's lands and wealth to the Hospitallers so that its original purpose could be met. Philip held onto some lands until 1318, and in England the crown and nobility held a great deal until 1338; in many areas of Europe (including England), the land was never given over to the Hospitaller Order, instead taken over by nobility and monarchs in an attempt to lessen the influence of the Church and its Orders.  Of the knights who had not admitted to the charges, against those whom nothing had been found, or those who had admitted but reconciled to the Church, some joined the Hospitallers (even staying in the same Templar houses); others joined Augustinian or Cistercian houses; and still others returned to secular life with pension.  In Portugal and Aragon, the Holy See granted the properties to two new Orders, the Order of Christ and the Order of Montessa respectively, made up largely of Templars in those kingdoms.  In the same bull, he urged those who had pleaded guilty be treated “according to the rigours of justice, tempered by a generous mercy.”


 * Molay and his first three dignitaries were found guilty as individuals by the papal commission. They were brought into public to recant of their crimes, after which they were to be imprisoned for life; Molay and Geoffrey of Charney instead denied the charges.  Molay announced the innocence of the Order, and offered his life for his false testimony of heresy.  Both were seized by French secular authorities as relapsed heretics and burned before the royal palace in 1314.  Interestingly enough, there is evidence that the cardinals of the papal commission at one point in 1308 falsified his testimony, saying he plead guilty when he had in reality plead innocent in that appearance, to prevent him from being burned at by French authorities as a relapsed heretic (many in the Order and the Church heirarchy thought the Order would be found innocent, and resume its prior position when the papal commission ended).


 * There it is in a nutshell - yes, Clement bowed to secular authority and public pressure in France to have the trial take place, but he didn't exactly benefit from the proceedings; in fact, the Church lost influence in many areas due to secular nobility retaining Templar lands and the scandal caused by the trial. Clement also attempted to keep the lands out of Philip's hands, hardly indicating a willing co-operation; in fact, Clement had been undergoing a process of trying to remove clergy from secular influence, particularly in France, prior to the trial.  His suspension of bishops and inquisitors' rights after the suspension of the initial French process confirms this fact.  Most historians agree - although Clement was weak in his decisions, the motivation for the trial was entirely Philip's, in both his belief in the heresy of the Order, and his desire to obtain their wealth.

Delisted GA
I'm delisting this article from GA status because it fails to cite its references. In addition, the article's lead is a bit too short. AndyZ 15:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of "Levi's interpretation"
Just a query regarding this section: it mentions that Harpocrates was not associated with debauch or lust, which seems to imply that Levi's Baphomet was. Where does this idea come from? Fuzzypeg 10:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Also there is a contradiction in the article. In 'Eliphas Levi & Baphomet' it is stated that "Lévi considered the Baphomet to be a depiction of the absolute in symbolic form" and then later in 'Baphomet in popular culture that "[Baphomet] is usually depicted as a demon per Lévi's interpretation". Levi did not consider Baphomet to be a demon but a representation of a concept, although inspiration for the form was taken from the Tarot De Marseille's Devil.

Removed text
The following text has been removed here:
 * "...the he-goat worshipped in the city of Mendes in Ancient Egypt. It is unclear whether the Ancient Egyptian women had intercourse with the goat during religious rites for fertility, but the Catholic Church claimed this and it is possible that this is where the notion that the Devil had intercourse with his witches came from. The goat (sometimes a ram was used) was the master of fertility and was celebrated as “copulator in Anep and inseminator in the district of Mendes,” where women were blessed with children. During rituals, women danced naked before the image. The Order of Nine Angles claims another perspective to Baphomet."

The animal venerated in Mendes was a ram not a goat. The "Catholic Church" made no such claim in connection with the ram deity Banebdjed, which is the actual historic deity of Mendes. “Copulator in Anep and inseminator in the district of Mendes,” is Levi's steamy phrase, I believe; it has no historical basis. "Women dancing naked before the image" yada yada yada &mdash;the same Second Empire culture that gave us Saint-Saens' Samson and Dalila and Flaubert's Salammbô&mdash; good entertainment but not good ethnographic history eh. This stuff does Wikipedia no good: copied from here, it's all over the Web. --Wetman 20:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"Albion" etc
I moved this unsourced "quotation" here: "The name of Baphomet is regarded by traditional Satanists as meaning "the mistress (or mother) of blood" - the (Satanic) Mistress who sometimes washes in the blood of her foes and whose hands are thereby stained. Allegedly, 7,000 years ago a civilization known as Albion had various rites associated with a Dark Goddess who was known as "Baphomet"." Allegedly indeed. --Wetman 01:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Medieval texts
I've made a Notes section, and injected some references. Can we get better text on the Templars, to replace what I've commented out? So, Eliphal Lévi seems to have provided an "etymology" for Littré's Dictionnaire de la langue française! Cheeky, eh! The aricle needs some instances of "Baphomet" in contemporaneous material connected to the Templar trials: is there anything in one of the more serious historical studies of the Templar trials? Or is "Baphomet" simply a 19th-century Gothic Revival phantom? --Wetman 15:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Upon the deleted anagrams of Baphomet
Alas, following this avenue, as richly allusive and meaningless as a POEM BATH, I find the paranoid hidden alarm of occultists in the face of public oppression — "PA! THE MOB!" — as well as the ideal place for such Baphomet speckle-ations, a HEMP BOAT. Please, can we erect a cairn to this nonsense, a TOMB HEAP? --Wetman 06:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Viollet-le-Duc's "gargoyles" are irrelevant
I removed the following text that was tacked onto a statement about similarities between Levi's Baphomet image and grotesques on Templar churches:
 * , or, more specifically, to Viollet-le-Duc's vivid gargoyles that were added to Notre Dame de Paris about the same time as Lévi's illustration.

Actually, Viollet-le-Duc's buildings are not "specific" instances of Templar churches, so that was misleading; also, I see no reason for mentioning these grotesques (they're not technically gargoyles) when they have only the vaguest similarity to Levi's drawing (they have horns, big deal), and the grotesques on Templar churches are much closer, and are the clear inspiration (along with the "Devil" tarot card) of Levi's image.

Check out these examples, for instance, and compare them with this chimera of Viollet-le-Duc:

I've found a few more of Viollet-le-Duc's "gargoyles" by doing a google image search, and none of them look much like Levi's drawing. The statement I removed was trying to suggest connections that are spurious. Fuzzypeg★ 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Baphomet=Bahamut
hey do you think there could be a possibilty of bahamut (a dragon sometimes goat headed dependind on the depiction)because Bahamut is considered a occult being. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.188.165.2 (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I completly agree with this concept. They are the same and the pronounciation is like that of Bahamut, even though it is spelled with a (ph). There are a few words in which ph creates a bizare but similar effect.

- The article on Bahamut seems to disagree, saying it is based off of 'behemoth'. Also, in what representation aside from popular culture has Bahamut been represented as a dragon? Various google searches all lead primarily (aside from final fantasy sites, of course) to varying accounts of the 'unfathomably massive fish' story, which makes up much of the current wiki article. And, rather than a goat head, it's most often a hippopotamus or elephant head. Sorry, I just don't see the connection here. 67.160.142.194 (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Urrr, whether or not they could be connected, unless some reliable author makes this connection, the theory has no place in Wikipedia. See the policy on original research. Original theories like this are better discussed elsewhere. Fuzzypeg★ 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LeoTaxilmysteres.jpg
Image:LeoTaxilmysteres.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The image description page says "Book cover, pre- 1897". What part of that is not understood?--Wetman (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Baphomet and the Shroud of Turin
I think it's very plausible that the Baphomet was the Shroud of Turin. The Shroud turned up in the ownership of a descendant of the Templars. The Templars were accused of worshipping a head. The Templars had taken an relic from the sack of Constantinople in 1204 that was called the Image of Edessa. It was supposed to be an image of the head of Jesus. There are quotations from Templars that the Image of Edessa is not just of a head but of a whole body. The Image of Edessa was a cloth of a whole body image folded to just show the head because it was considered indecent to show the whole body. By the way, that was the same reason given by the King of France why the Shroud of Turin should not be exhibited. The Baphomet was probably the Image of Edessa which was in turn the Shroud of Turin. Barney Hill (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * All of this is possible, but Wikipedia articles can only include notable theories that appear in published works. Theories must be attributed to a notable author or a reliable source. Otherwise such material is regarded as original research and removed. Fuzzypeg★ 07:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ian Wilson claimed that the 'head' of the Templars was the Shroud of Turin, but he never once called the 'head' Baphomet. Ian Wilson, The Turin Shroud (Victor Gollancz Ltd; 1978 ISBN 0 575 02483 6). Wfgh66 (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed pop culture section
A large quantity of the pop culture section was just repeating the disambiguation page. We need to avoid building a trivia section on this page, or creating endless lists of popular representations of the figure. The only time such information would be warranted in an article like this is if that pop reference has significantly changed the common understanding of who or what Baphomet is. And I can't think of any representations that do this.

So, lets rely on the disambiguation page, and if there's some pop culture mention that doesn't warrant its own devoted article, then we can probably safely assume it's under the notability threshold for Wikipedia. I'm not even convinced of the notability of the various song titles that are listed in Baphomet (disambiguation), but it's better having them there than here... Fuzzypeg★ 21:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Insertion by IP 195.229.235.38
I removed the following text, inserted by IP 195.229.235.38, for several simple reasons: Mohammad Al-Harbi is not a philologist, his support of Emile Littré is no more sound than yours or mine, and Littré is already discussed and referenced, and the alleged supportive blurb has not in fact been asserted in print anywhere: --Wetman (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * However, some contemporary researchers of Middle Eastern history such as Mohammad Al-Harbi, also known as Dabyani, endorse the view of the French lexicographer and philosopher Emile Littré that the word was cabalistically formed by writing backward tem. o. h. p. ab an abbreviation of templi omnium hominum pacis abbas, 'abbot' or 'father of the temple of peace of all men.' Emile Littré used Eliphas Lévi, who re-introduced the name and image of Bahomet in its current form, as his source. Dabyani sees this view more credible since there is no apparent connection between the name Mahomet and the word Bafometz used by the Occitan troubadour quoted by Peter Partner.

Rider-Waite claim
I removed the following sentence until someone can cite a source:
 * Lévi's Baphomet is clearly the source as well of the later Tarot image of the Devil, in the Rider-Waite design.

I don't think the similarity between the Baphomet picture and the Rider-Waite Devil trump picture is as self-evident as this statement assumes, and even if it is true, needs substantiation. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Self-evident by comparing illustrations. Visual literacy .--Wetman (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is self-evident, which mean a reliable source undoubtedly mentioned it sometime too, which would be nice if not vital to have. DreamGuy (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Colbert
I know it would be out of place but Stephen Colbert totally mentioned Baphomet on his Christmas special DVD. He mentions it sometime during his video advent calender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.12.31 (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of people mention all sorts of things all the time. That doesn't mean they are worth listing in an encyelpodia article about that topic. DreamGuy (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)



Key of Solomon
The long historical text contains the passage:


 * When excavating beneath the temple, the knights discovered gold and ancient relics, and also many scrolls. Putting two and two together, it appears they also found scrolls containing knowledge that eventually found its way into grimiores instructing on how to summon Demons using abusive methods- "The Key of Solomon." Shortly thereafter, magnificent cathedrals and other buildings sprung up all over Europe. Most of the Goetic Demons are known for their expertise in architecture and there are legends claiming many bridges and buildings in Europe were built by Satan and his Demons.

Anyone have a reference for this? Smerdis of Tlön 13:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That contains one fallacy (post hoc ergo prompter hoc), one falsehood (to my knowledge, no one knows what they found excavating the temple), something that is probably untrue (most Goetic demons knowing about architecture), and one irrelevance (citing legends and rumors as evidence). Besides, it sounds a bit like original research. I'd try to find something to corroborate it, but I'm stuck on dial-up right now. JustSomeKid


 * What it does sound like, however, is a Europeanisation of a well-known Arab story concerning Solomon in his legendary role as master of magic: that he conjured the demon Chashmodai (Latinised as Asmodeus from Timothy), who gave him a magic ring commanding a thousand spirits wherewith he commanded the building of the Temple. It's referenced here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon#Demons_and_magic
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Provenance
I'd like to remove the phrase "uncertain provenance" from the lead of this article. The origin of the name of Baphomet has been reliably linked to the Templar inquisitions, and the image has been reliably sourced to Levi in the 19th century. I know this may be a controversial change though, so I wanted to check here at talk first. The article used to say "uncertain provenance" before the link to the Inquisition transcripts was confirmed. I was the one that did the research into Templar works (I've pushed the Knights Templar article to FA status) and added that reference, but I didn't remove the "uncertain" phrase. I'd like to fix that now. Do other editors agree with the change? --Elonka 21:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If contemporaneous documents do employ "Baphomet", then "uncertain provenance" is unwarranted. A quote from a transcript (they must be published even in populariztions) would clinch it; the current unreassuring reference is merely to generic "transcriptions".--Wetman 22:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been referred to in multiple modern documentaries, plus by academic Malcolm Barber, who is the current undisputed authority when it comes to the Knights Templar. If you want, I can dig up an exact quote from his book The New Knighthood. --Elonka 23:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (followup) Here's a quote from Peter Partner's book "The Knights Templar and their Myth", page 34: "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 = Muhammad)." He also quotes from "a poem written in a Provencal dialect by a troubadour who is thought to have been a Templar", referring to some battles in 1265 that were not going well for the Crusaders: "And daily they impose new defeats on us: for God, who used to watch on our behalf, is now asleep, and Muhammad [Bafometz] puts forth his power to support the Sultan." There are other quotes from the book as well, where the author explains that "Baphomet" was etymologically equivalent to the Old French version of the word Muhammad. --Elonka 21:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the kind of stuff the article needs, IMO: do edit it in, with your references.--Wetman 02:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The reference mentioned here says the poem was about battles in 1265, but the article currently says 'Twelfth Century' (ie 1100s). Presumably it should be Thirteenth century? --AntonChanning (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Pagan deity
Where does the idea of Baphomet as a Pagan deity come from?--Jcvamp (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From the popular idea in the Middle Ages that Islam was polytheistic and worshipped idols -- Muslims were claimed to worship Muhammad, Termagant, Apollo etc. So when 'Muhammad' became corrupted to 'Bafomet' it was natural to assign the name as a 'pagan' god. (On the other hand, Islam was also considered by some to be a Christian heresy -- thus Muhammad is among the heresiarchs and sowers of schism in the Divine Comedy.) 128.194.250.68 (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeated removals of the word "imagined"
The word "imagined in the lede's first sentence is essential, yet it keeps getting removed. I don't know whether this has been done by the same person or group, or whether the sentence misleads people, despite the clarification in parentheses:
 * Baphomet is an imagined pagan deity (i.e., a product of Christian folklore concerning pagans), revived in the 19th century as a figure of Satanism.

I'm just wondering whether these are actually different people who stumble over "imagined [...] deity", have their red-alert set off, and immediately remove what they see as a redundant "imagined", without actually finishing the sentence. I admit that, at the very least, the entire first sentence shouldn't be asking too much from a reader. Nevertheless, if anyone can come up with a more foolproof phrasing, it might be worth a shot. ---Sluzzelin talk  23:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well put. You're very patient, Sluzzelin.--Wetman (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put in a note in the faint hope that someone will care to read it. Trigaranus (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that just my computer or have the insert tools below become extremely pointless without their hyperlinks? Is it really the idea that "copy+paste" works better than just being able to click it? I don't wanna sign my posts anymore...! (whine) Trigaranus (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent additions
More sources are needed to clarify the provenance of Hammer's images. The book provided for the reference to "grotesque carvings on the Templar churches", The Pillars of Tubal Cain, does not provide the necessary information.

The paragraph beginning with "In mystic symbolism" seems to have been written by someone who has not actually read Eliphas Levi's books (few people have; this article may need to discuss Levi's alchemical philosophy more). The "Geometrical theory" section is obviously written by the (self-published) author himself and probably falls well below any standards of notability. (So it goes.) Kramden (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion
I suggest to create the Association with the Holy Spirit of the Christians which is something OTO.de has already done — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.180.61.188 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Baphomet & The Order of Nine Angles
The Order of Nine Angles, via their publications, semi-official websites and weblogs have written substantially about Baphomet. The ONA view her as a "Dark Goddess," and "Bride of Lucifer," among other epithets. I think it would be worth including in this article that there is an occult group out there that have a totally different conception of Baphomet, and one they claim to be founded upon a genuine esoteric tradition. Now, before the whole "the ONA does not exist" argument surfaces, I would like to point out that this ethereal organization has recently been subject to scholarly discussion. Cf. Jacob C. Senholt's thesis entitled: "The Sinister Tradition," as well as number of papers from the pen of a certain Richard Sterling. So, I think a brief mention of the ONA's conception of Baphomet is encyclopedia worthy. D. Y. Boulet 9:47 AM (AST), April 17th, 2010. —Preceding undated comment added 12:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC). I Strongly Suggest the opposite because it is the same as the Holy Spirit of the Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.180.61.188 (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Article is self contradicting, please research, Baphamut/Baphomet and wisdom/knowledge/Sophia
I believe this article contradicts itself here;

Dr. Hugh J. Schonfield (1901–1988),[34] one of the scholars who worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls, argued in his book The Essene Odyssey that the word "Baphomet" was created with knowledge of the Atbash substitution cipher, which substitutes the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet for the last, the second for the second last, and so on. "Baphomet" rendered in Hebrew is בפומת; interpreted using Atbash, it becomes שופיא, which can be interpreted as the Greek word "Sophia", or wisdom. This theory is an important part of the plot of The Da Vinci Code. Professor Schonfield's theory however cannot be independently corroborated.

The statement "Professor Schonfield's theory however cannot be independently corroborated." contradicts itself here;

In Magick (Book 4), Crowley asserted that Baphomet was a divine androgyne and "the hieroglyph of arcane perfection":

The Devil does not exist. It is a false name invented by the Black Brothers to imply a Unity in their ignorant muddle of dispersions. A devil who had unity would be a God... 'The Devil' is, historically, the God of any people that one personally dislikes... This serpent, SATAN, is not the enemy of Man, but He who made Gods of our race, knowing Good and Evil; He bade 'Know Thyself!' and taught Initiation. He is 'The Devil' of the Book of Thoth, and His emblem is BAPHOMET, the Androgyne who is the hieroglyph of arcane perfection... He is therefore Life, and Love. But moreover his letter is ayin, the Eye, so that he is Light; and his Zodiacal image is Capricornus, that leaping goat whose attribute is Liberty.[51] For Crowley, Baphomet is further a representative of the spiritual nature of the spermatozoa while also being symbolic of the "magical child" produced as a result of sex magic. As such, Baphomet represents the Union of Opposites, especially as mystically personified in Chaos and Babalon combined and biologically manifested with the sperm and egg united in the zygote.[citation needed]

Crowley proposed that Baphomet was derived from "Father Mithras". In his Confessions he describes the circumstances that led to this etymology:[52]

I had taken the name Baphomet as my motto in the O.T.O. For six years and more I had tried to discover the proper way to spell this name. I knew that it must have eight letters, and also that the numerical and literal correspondences must be such as to express the meaning of the name in such a ways as to confirm what scholarship had found out about it, and also to clear up those problems which archaeologists had so far failed to solve.... One theory of the name is that it represents the words βαφὴ μήτεος, the baptism of wisdom; another, that it is a corruption of a title meaning "Father Mithras". Needless to say, the suffix R supported the latter theory. I added up the word as spelt by the Wizard. It totalled 729. This number had never appeared in my Cabbalistic working and therefore meant nothing to me. It however justified itself as being the cube of nine. The word κηφας, the mystic title given by Christ to Peter as the cornerstone of the Church, has this same value. So far, the Wizard had shown great qualities! He had cleared up the etymological problem and shown why the Templars should have given the name Baphomet to their so-called idol. Baphomet was Father Mithras, the cubical stone which was the corner of the Temple.

I believe Crowley Did corroborate this connection of "wisdom" with baphomet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.226.178 (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Baphomet and Mahomet; etymologies and vandalism issues
Vandals have recently taken to repeatedly removing the link of the name "Baphomet" to "Mahomet," a widely attested Latin form of the name of the Prophet Muhammad; and Idries Shah's proposed Arabic etymology. They are claimed to be "derogatory to Islam and its prophet."

Even if they are, bear in mind that this is an etymology for a Crusader-era word, for a supposed idol that was meant to be derogatory to someone or another.

It remains the case that the "Mahomet" etymology is the most obvious etymology, the one most lexicographers would accept, makes no pretension that the name somehow conceals some secret learning, and ties in directly with the allegations being made (that the Templars were secretly in league with Islam). Idries Shah, I cheerfully admit, is a dodgy character, but it remains the case that his proposed etymology appeared in print in a book he wrote, albeit under his goofy pseudonym "Arkon Daraul."

If you honestly imagine that the way these facts are reported should be reworded, I'd be happy to hear proposals to reword them. However, I have asked in the interim that a version of the page containing the etymologies be protected; and I will report anyone who simply deletes them with this claim as a vandal. Smerdis of Tlön 20:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Baphomet and Mahomet; etymologies and vandalism issues Your claim that Templars were in leagues with Muslims and that Baphomet is a distorted form of the word Mahomet is highly disputable and should not a part of Wikipadeia's literature. I would request you not to link the Crusade-era misinformation with Islam or its Prophet. If you really want to use the controversial literature, then the webpage should carry a disclaimer that the contents of the website are controversial and should not be taken for fact.


 * Regarding the "mahomet" etymology, no one is saying the Templars were in league with Islam. I interpreted the etymology (as written) to mean the Templars submitted to the inquisition by using a bastardization of a word from a religion they were ignorant of. The way it is written is open to interpretation on the reader's part, allowing the reader to decide how that is or is not a possibility. Idries Shah's etymology is his own and clearly stated as such, and is not endorsed, only mentioned. I omitted the "mahomet" etymology but reverted the "Abufihamat" etymology. I see no logical reason for Shah's to be controversial. JustSomeKid


 * The Baphomet/Mahomet etymology appears in most standard reference books. Reword it if you think it needs rewording, but it definitely should stay.  I have restored it, and added a web-link to an online edition of a 1910 Catholic ditionary in which it appears.  While I was at it, I also added an ISBN to the Idries Shah "Arkon Daraul" book which proposes his etymology.  I doubt that the vandals will bother looking at any reference, though, or come up with any constructive suggestions.  Smerdis of Tlön 19:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The website referenced points to a Catholic propoganda webpage and the fairness of its content are questionable. It is a historically known fact that during the centuries of Crusades, Islam was demonized in Europe by the mideaval European scholars with a bigoted intent of discrediting Islam. The lierature originating from Europe during this period was full of venom and misinformation about Islam and its Prophet. To use this literature as a source of knowledge & factual truth is doing injustice not only to Islam but also the readers of Wikipedia. I will urge the Moderators/Administrators to publish a disclaimer stating that the contents of this webpage are controversial to say the least. Readers with an ulterior motive should be discouraged from posting false and malicious information on Wikipedia. It is really interesting to know how myths could be posted on Wikipedia as facts by some learned users. Please visit the follwoing website that again illustrates the intellectual level of these postings: http://www.templarhistory.com/shah.html (User: Straight, 07/25/2005)


 * How is Islam slandered by what is clearly an example of European ignorance, if they are true? The etymologies are clearly marked as possibilities, and not endorsed. Whether you like those possibilities is your own taste, but there is no reason to omit them. JustSomeKid


 * . . .During the centuries of Crusades, Islam was demonized in Europe by the mideaval European scholars with a bigoted intent of discrediting Islam. The lierature originating from Europe during this period was full of venom and misinformation about Islam and its Prophet. No argument from me here about any of this.  If this is so, it really isn't surprising to find that the origin of the name "Baphomet" arose from one more such incident.  Frankly, what you are saying makes this purported etymology more rather than less believable.  It remains an attested fact that this is one source that has been pointed out.  Smerdis of Tlön 03:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The new rewrite was good, but highly redundant. I truncated it to: A slanderous deformation of the Latinised "Mahomet", a medieval Latin rendering of Muhammad (مُحَمَد), the name of the prophet of Islam. [1] During the era of the Crusades, the European literature contained deliberate misinformation and distortions against Islam and its prophet, making it equivalent to "propaganda" warfare. It is therefore possible that the origin of the name "Baphomet" arose from one more such incident. The Knights Templar fought among Muslims, but the very strong proscription of idolatry in Islam makes a Muslim source for the modern term doubtful. Thoughts? JustSomeKid


 * Not bad, although I do think the parallel with termagant is worth preserving. The point should be made that Europeans of the period equated Muslims with "pagans," portrayed them worshipping Muhammad as a god, and invented fictional deities that they were imagined to worship.  A culture where such tales circulated was also capable of inventing the god "Baphomet" in a politically motivated inquisition involving a crusader order with Middle Eastern contacts.  Smerdis of Tlön 04:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The wording of this article was proposing that the name "Baphomet" was an attempt to slander Islam, but didn't even hint at an attempt to slander the Templars. I find this very unlikely. Firstly, the muslims were already demonised in European eyes, and thought to engage in all kinds of devil worship. There was nothing to be gained by adding the minor detail that their prophet was idolised as some form of statue. Secondly, this name was first mentioned during the Templar trials, wasn't it, when it seems the church was bringing charges against the Templars? Isn't it the Templars who are the most likely target of any attempt at slander? I'm sure whoever invented such slander wouldn't have cared if both Templars and Muslims were tarred by the same brush, but in this case, I don't think the principal intended victims were the Muslims, but the Templars! Correct me if I'm wrong, please. Fuzzypeg ☻ 00:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The claimed etymology of "Baphomet" deriving from "Mahomet" is just plain silly. I don't care how many university lexicographers think it makes sense, this ridiculous hypothesis can easily be demolished and therefore has no place in Wikipedia.

Firtly, remember that the claim against the Templars was very specific - worship of an IDOL which they called BAPHOMET. Islam expressly forbids idol worship, especially one which represents the prophet Muhammad. If we suppose that the Templars had in fact adopted some beliefs/practices from Islam, there is no way they be worshipping an idol.G

Without trying too hard, you can distort the word to just about whatever you want, depending on what theory you are trying to promote. I therefore propose that the sin of the Templars was in fact an obsession with personal hygiene (in a time when most Europeans were filthy), and that the word derives from "bath mat". Logicman1966 09:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't understand. If somebody else has written about it, it can be reported as fact. Wikipedia standard is verifiability, not truth. In any case, it is true that such and such scholars make such and such argument. You are welcome to add opposing other verifiable opinions as well, just as long as you can cite a reliable source for them. IPSOS (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Baphomet coming from βαφ̣η μητις would not mean "Baptism of Wisdom"; it would mean "Tempering Wisdom". βαφ̣η, though coming from the root βαπτω, in Greek means to dip, and was used in ancient times for the process in which heated metal was dipped into water; Greek English Lexicon, Liddell, Scott page 279. (Yaaqov Ben Yisrael 02:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YaaqovYisrael (talk • contribs)

The name Baphomet was derived from a Cypher from the name YEHOVAH and YESHUWA
http://web.archive.org/web/20000309222614/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/3164/Baphomet.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C518:6C40:499D:147D:E714:C6DE (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The bearded head in the pentagram in this Masonic Illustration is the severed head of John the Baptist that the Knights Templar were accused of harboring and practicing necromancy with. 2602:306:C518:6C40:499D:147D:E714:C6DE (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Goya, Murray and Mendes
I would like to briefly explain my reasoning for my last edit and, perhaps, provoke some constructive conversation to improve this article. The Goya painting does indeed look similar to Levi's goat, but there are no sources saying that it was an inspiration for the latter image. Like wise, Murray's Witch Cult never mentions Baphomet. There is a better connection with Mendes, because Levi named his image "the goat of Mendes" but it appears to be speculation at this point that he was specifically referring to the passage from Herotodus. We need a better source for that. Going deeply into the anthropological evidence of a "goat-cult" there may be going too far afield because we don't know (or don't have a source) for how well Levi understood the significance of the goat cult of Mendes, if, indeed, that was what he was trying to reference at all. Any one have better information on this?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Logically, I can see of no other place where Levi could have gotten the idea of a goat with a candle between its horns than from medieval witchcraft records, as he also cites other pieces of lore in his book. But this likely falls under OR, I suppose--academic discussion of Levi's Baphomet is virtually nonexistent (that I know of). The Goya part is more questionable. There are still numerous uncited passages in this article that need attention, notably the von Hammer-Purgstall section. Kramden (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Where does Levi cite this in his books? Does he ever connect it to his Baphomet illustration?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Below this figure we read a frank and simple inscription--THE DEVIL. Yes, we confront here that phantom of all terrors, the dragon of the all theogenies, the Ahriman of the Persians, the Typhon of the Egyptians, the Python of the Greeks, the old serpent of the Hebrews, the fantastic monster, the nightmare, the Croquemitaine, the gargoyle, the great beast of the Middle Ages, and--worse than all these--the Baphomet of the Templars, the bearded idol of the alchemist, the obscene deity of Mendes, the goat of the Sabbath. The frontispiece to this ‘Ritual’ reproduces the exact figure of the terrible emperor of night, with all his attributes and all his characters. [...] Yes, in our profound conviction, the Grand Masters of the Order of Templars worshipped the Baphomet, and caused it to be worshipped by their initiates; yes, there existed in the past, and there may be still in the present, assemblies which are presided over by this figure, seated on a throne and having a flaming torch between the horns. But the adorers of this sign do not consider, as do we, that it is a representation of the devil; on the contrary, for them it is that of the god Pan, the god of our modern schools of philosophy, the god of the Alexandrian theurgic school and of our own mystical Neoplatonists, the god of Lamartine and Victor Cousin, the god of Spinoza and Plato, the god of the primitive Gnostic schools; the Christ also of the dissident priesthood. [...] The mysteries of the Sabbath have been variously described, but they figure  always in grimoires and in magical trials; the revelations  made on the subject may be classified under three heads  1. those referring to a fantastic and imaginary Sabbath; 2.  those which betray the secrets of the occult assemblies of  veritable adepts; 3. revelations of foolish and criminal  gatherings, having for their object the operations of black  magic." ("The Sabbath of the Sorcerers," pp. 288-289)


 * Essentially, Levi and Murray both believed in their own way that medieval "devil worship" was a perpetuation of ancient pagan rites. Kramden (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

atbash cipher
About the Atbash cipher, I am a Hebrew speaker (and translator). While I won't argue with Schonfeld, there is definitely something missing there. I am not familiar with the word at all. Danny


 * I think that is common with Christian mystics' use of Hebrew, is it not? Anyhow, I just transliterated what was there (Baphomet to BPhMT) and worked out the Atbash for it according to the description of Atbash. It comes out ShVYA, which is what "some people" (that famous Wikipedia phrase) interpret as "Sophia". --FOo

The correct hebrew spelling of the supposed word 'sophia' is &#1513;&#1493;&#1508;&#1497;&#1488; and the atbash form of that is &#1489;&#1508;&#1506;&#1502;&#1514; or Baf'omet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chiramabi (talk • contribs) November 2003 (UTC)

That is correct. What Danny needs to realize is that the word "bafomet" is not Hebrew at all. The mysticism about all of it is explained quite succinctly and in detail here: http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-baphomet.html

The word Bahu, however, is Hebrew. This is explained in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tani (talk • contribs) June 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually:
 * Both Chirabami and the mentioned webpage claim that atbash translates &#1513;&#1493;&#1508;&#1497;&#1488;  to &#1489;&#1508;&#1506;&#1502;&#1514;.  This is not correct, as explained below.
 * The webpage mentioned above is not at all "succinct"; and several details there are either missing or wrong.   Unfortunately that page has neither an "edit" nor a "discussion" button...
 * Austrian 23:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Baf'omet is not Sofia
It is true that the atbash cipher translates
 * bfomt = בפומת

into
 * $ofia = שופיא

(here I use "$" for the hebrew letter Sin, which can be pronounced "s" or "sh").

However,
 * 1) In the Hebrew version of "Baphomet", the middle letter is an Ayin, not Waw:  בפעמת, not בפומת. A better latin transliteration would be baph`omet. (At least this is what Google tells me: 145 results for version with Waw, only 15 of them not mentioning "sophia", and 300 results for the version with Ayin, among them the Wikipedia version of origin belief.)
 * 2) In the customary Hebrew transliteration of "Sophia", the first letter is a Samekh (ס), not Shin (ש); and the last letter is (as in most female words ending in -a) heh ( ה), not aleph (א):  It is סופיה, not שופיא.  sofih, not $ofia.
 * (Try searching google for "שופיא", or better yet: "שופיא -baphomet"; there are almost no results. Or check out the Hebrew article for the capital of Bulgaria he:סופיה. The Hebrew Wikipedia has articles about various people called Sofia, such as Sophia Loren or Sofia Coppola, all of them are spelled with Samekh and Heh.)

Austrian 16:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * in response to your points above:
 * As mentioned in someone's comment above, Baphomet is not known to be a Hebrew word. Therefore there is no "right" way to transliterate it in Hebrew.
 * Sophia is not a Hebrew word either, but a Greek word. Again, it could be transliterated however you want.
 * This does rather beg the question of why someone would use the Hebrew Atbash cypher for two non-Hebrew words, but stranger things have happened. I would guess the only reason for using the Hebrew Atbash cypher is because it produces this interesting association of words. Fuzzypeg ☻ 04:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is correct that neither "Sophia" nor (as far as I know) "Baphomet" are Hebrew. Still I believe that there can be a "right" way of transliteration; in any case I only claimed that neither of the two words בפומת and שופיא is a customary transliteration. Austrian 23:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If the assumption is made that baphomet is from Hebrew, it could be possible that it is derived from a phrase, and not necessarily a word. בפי מוות B'fi mavit means "in the face of death, or by means of death"; changing the noun to a participle we have בפי מת b'fi met which would mean "by means of dying". Considering the Templars were engaging Arabs, it is possible the phrase could have derived from Arabic; بالوفاء الموت bi'lwifai'lmawt means "till death, or to meet death" and could have easily degraded to بوفاء موت biwifai mawt "fulfillment of death" which could have been mistransliterated as baphomet. A Templar considered martyrdom to ensure him a place in heaven; a goal that most Templars wished to reach. (Yaaqov Ben Yisrael 03:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YaaqovYisrael (talk • contribs)

It is a mistake to suppose that the starting point ever was a Hebrew word. The atbash cipher was a genuine tool used by ancient biblical authors. Its use in converting the Greek Sophia into Baphomet, if that is the origin of the latter, is just a spot of mediaeval mischief. The word Baphomet is now set in stone, though we may never know the real origin. I happen to like the atbash hypothesis, but I won't lose any sleep over whether it is correct.--DStanB (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Baphomet
Sincerely I would like to add something or would someone please add the truth to this page. Baphomet among many other demons such as Baal and Legion are mentioned in the bible. Clearly that is way before the 14th century. Some instances are mentioned in the old testament going even farther back. Someone please correct this mistake?

Mark B. (ref) King James Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.253.252 (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Baphomet pictures
Would it be possible to find an image that represents better the historical Baphomet (that is, the three-face head that the Templars suppossedly adored) and place it at the top of the page? I find the current images misleading. Surely, Levi's interpretation is the most popular, but precisely for this reason, it would be better if the article didn't reinforce the misconception that Baphomet has something to do with goats or satanism (at least originally). The goat/Satan connection came much later, and it's a complete invention made by individuals like Levi or modern societies such as LaVey's Satanic Church. The current images would be better in the Levi's section at the bottom of the page, IMO.83.57.60.10 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * While I agree with the sentiment, the real stumbling block is that the head with (up to) three faces that the Templars, in their trials for heresy, were accused of worshipping was only ever described verbally, and wholly inconsistently. Any images derived from those descriptions would be no less speculative than that offered by Eliphas Levi. For example, one might suggest the concept underlying this 'head' could have been a three-dimensional tetrahedron which, when carried in procession on a platter as in some of the Templars accusers' testimonies, would have only three visible faces. Not to mention the first syllable of tetrahedron sounding like the French word tête (head), which might have been misconstrued during those trials, which were held mostly around France. While this explanation seems to me to be a front-runner, it still lacks independent corroboration. --DStanB (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

8chan and Gamergate - What's the relevance towards the article?
Greetings! There was recently added a new paragraph to Baphomet about some 8chan subforum name. Now taking a closer look, I can't but wonder why this and some Gamergate scandal - aside from the name - would be relevant to the article. Kencf0618? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The contemporary usage of the name in connection with GamerGate and the doxxing of a federal judge -neither are which are exactly chopped liver- is exactly the point. kencf0618 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So all that's in common with the article and some website's subforum, is the name? If so, then it's very tangentially related to the topic. This article is about mythology, not about gaming. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By that logic it's not about any incarnations of the Tarot deck, either, yet there they are. Not that I see any hat note about mythology. kencf0618 (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article falls under categories Thelema and LaVeyan Satanism, both of which are religious movements. Also at Baphomet (disambiguation), the article is described as "Baphomet is a demonic image used in occult and historical references.". A name of a forum - especially when it doesn't even deal with the content - is highly unrelated to the topic on hand. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"Speculation" Thought Unverifiable. Might Even Be Speculative.
I have removed the box saying that this article contains speculative or unverified information. It's an article about the occult. Well, uh, not only is the content of occult beliefs unverified, but any assertion about beliefs about that content is necessarily unverifiable, if for no other reason than that a substantial number of the believers are total loons and anything you verify them as believing today will have changed by this time tomorrow. Daylight Saving Time applies. As a general proposition, I find Wikipedia littered with far too many of these moronic boxes interjecting silly editorial notions. I'm reminded that back in the Nixon Administration, when the Federal auto safety regulations were just getting under way, there was a posting in the Federal Register to the effect that the newest Rolls Royce had far too much horsepower, and the citizenry had the right to comment on some proposed limitation by doing thus-and-so. Just one citizen performed the thus-and-so, commenting that the proposed regulation was, all things considered, totally lunatic. The Feds saw the point and dropped it.

There is hope. David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Charges Against Knights Templar Couldn't Have Been Wholly Fabricated?
"Yet Malcolm Barber observes that historians 'find it difficult to accept that an affair of such enormity rests upon total fabrication.'"

Exactly the mentality of Stalinist apologists for the Moscow Trials and other horrors with the same ideological "religious" backdrop. In particular I am always reminded of the fate of the Templars when contemplating the purge of Marshal Tukhachevsky and the Soviet General Staff. Nest of spies and traitors unearthed! Fascist rats exposed! Huh, the bulwark of the nation's defense, it's most heroic and dedicated warriors are now nothing but dogs--t? So the Knight Templar the shock troops of the Crusaders were actually vile heretics in league with Satan all along! The insidious methodology of diabolical back stabbing tyrants from Tiberius (think Lin Biao in the role of Sejanus) to King Philip to Stalin, Mao and Kim. I really think the latter three actually studied the history and methods of the Inquisition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.198.30.48 (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Heretical or Hermetical?
The lead refers to the Baphomet representing a "heretical" tradition. Is that perhaps a typo? Is perhaps "hermetical" what's meant? I realise that both words kind of fit, but hermetical surely makes more sense in this context. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Pull quotes
The pull quotes are way too long. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baphomet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120723145303/http://www.agepedia.org/wiki/BAPHOMET to http://www.agepedia.org/wiki/BAPHOMET

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Changes by Ksshd
These changes by appear to be supported by WP:FRINGE sources instead of professionally-published mainstream academic sources.

The Sabbatic Goat is the zodiacal sign of Capricorn takes for granted ideas that Eliphas Levi made up. Whatever their spiritual validity, historically, that idea does not predate Levi.

when all matter is hierarchized into the world tree, also known as the Christmas tree and the tree of life. The cosmic tree grants all wishes to the Last Adam and Eve, who are the apex of the cosmic hierarchy: - This is not supported by a source at all.

The name "Baphomet" means "the hard-wisdomed one" - This cites a WP:PRIMARY source and is original research.

In Gnosticism, soft wisdom is symbolized by the zodiacal sign of Scorpion or Serpent cites the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, for which "the outdated nature of some of its content makes its use as a source for modern scholarship problematic." Not only that, but that portion cites the line "A Serpent was the Egyptian equivalent of Scorpio," which says nothing of Gnosticism or "soft wisdom."

which is the wisest of all animals cites a Bible verse that does not even say the Serpent is/was wise. Even if it did, it'd be personal interpretation of a primary source, which we don't do here.

I'm not going to bother going through the rest of it.

Did you know that citations are supposed to actually support their claims and be relevant to them? They're not just footnotes for tangentially related claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"Falsely"
As the article of the body explains (with sources),
 * Over 100 different charges had been leveled against the Templars. Most of them were dubious
 * Of the few confessions that mentioned Baphomet, The description of the object changed from confession to confession.
 * There was no consistency in its description: Some Templars denied any knowledge of it. Others, under torture, described it as being either a severed head, a cat, or a head with three faces.
 * The claims of an idol named Baphomet were unique to the Inquisition of the Templars. Karen Ralls, author of the Knights Templar Encyclopedia, argues that it is significant that "no specific evidence [of Baphomet] appears in either the Templar Rule or in other medieval period Templar documents." The few instances where anything like the word "Baphomet" appear before the trials, it is in the same context as the entirely fictitious Termagant.  Ralls goes on to note that claims of Baphomet being a concrete physical object come from sources within the past few centuries, not contemporary accounts.

If we look at the Chinon Parchment article, we'll also find (again, sourced):
 * in 1308, Pope Clement V absolved the last Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, and the rest of the leadership of the Knights Templar from charges brought against them by the Medieval Inquisition.
 * only Hugo de Pérraud claimed to see the "head of an idol" the Templars were accused of worshiping, in Montpellier, in the possession of Brother Peter Alemandin, Preceptor of Montpellier. All other Templars mentioned in the Chinon Parchment denied being encouraged to "join" with other brothers, and none of the others was asked about an idol.
 * The Chinon Parchment details a failed attempt by the Pope to preserve the Templars from the machinations of King Philip IV of France, through establishing that the Order was not heretical and was capable of reform under the aegis of the Church.

There's a reason why the Knights Templar article only mentions the accusations of Baphomet worship in passing: the accusations were obviously nothing but political propaganda by King Phillip IV to get out of paying his debt to the Templars. It was not the first time he had used this tactic, either. As this article notes, the same tactics were used against many of King Philip's enemies; he had earlier kidnapped Pope Boniface VIII and charged him with near identical offenses. The obvious falsehood of the accusations is why almost all the Templars either transferred to the Hospitalers or else retired in peace.

No modern mainstream historians (who have access to more contemporary sources than 19th or 18th century historians) argue that the Templars actually worshiped Baphomet, only those who argue that the Templars were secretly gnostics, Freemasons (or proto-Masons or Rosicrucians), or part of a fictitious witch-cult.

All of this information is present in the relevant articles, with reliable sources backing them.

The argument that Whether the accusations were false or not cannot be confirmed unless you know someone alive from that time that was involved is the sort of denial of the very concept of history a Young Earth Creationist would utter. Arguing "The word does not belong there, especially since they IN FACT WERE *ACCUSED*" suggests that you don't understand what "falsely accused" means. "Falsely accused" does not mean that they were not accused, it means they were accused of things that did not happen -- this is something that all native English speakers and competent ESL speakers understand. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "...obviously nothing but political propaganda" That is conjecture at best, and fully subjective. So is "obvious falsehood" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixit (talk • contribs)
 * Respond after a post, signing with four tildes ( ~ ). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out above, all the sources in the relevant articles support the conclusion that the accusations were false. Furthermore, to call it propaganda is by no means inappropriate:
 * All of the Templars' treasures were transferred to other orders, and no Baphomet or any other idol was found.
 * You have provided no reliable sources to suggest that the accusations regarding Baphomet were anything but false. Wikipedia does not create artificial balance between fringe claims and mainstream history.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As this is an NPOV issue, consensus is not required to remove NPOV issues. Also, you cannot prove a negative.  The fact that the accusations were made is not in dispute. They were found guilty, so the burden of proof for your claim is on you to prove the accusations were false. Sixit (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * NPOV is determined by sources (which you flagrantly ignore the existence of) not original research (which you're not even doing a good job of).
 * Regarding you cannot prove a negative Have you stopped beating children yet? There was never any physical evidence, the accusations had clear political motivations, the few confessions were under torture and later recanted, contemporary independent investigation absolved the Templars, the remaining Templars either transferred to the Hospitalers or retired, and modern mainstream historians find no reason whatsoever to believe that the Templars ever worshiped any sort of "Baphomet" -- you are trying to create artificial balance for a conspiracy theory that completely ignores Occam's Razor, which is a violation of NPOV.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * NPOV is determined by sources (which you flagrantly ignore the existence of) not original research (which you're not even doing a good job of).
 * Regarding you cannot prove a negative Have you stopped beating children yet? There was never any physical evidence, the accusations had clear political motivations, the few confessions were under torture and later recanted, contemporary independent investigation absolved the Templars, the remaining Templars either transferred to the Hospitalers or retired, and modern mainstream historians find no reason whatsoever to believe that the Templars ever worshiped any sort of "Baphomet" -- you are trying to create artificial balance for a conspiracy theory that completely ignores Occam's Razor, which is a violation of NPOV.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Really, really?!
Article says:
 * The name Baphomet comes up in several of these confessions.

This link (The Baphomet Mythos) claims:
 * Although the popular mythology related to the Templars gives this idol the name of Baphomet, the fact remains that in all the testimonies against the Templars, the term Baphomet was used but twice.

However the link also claims:
 * Central to the accusations brought against the Knights Templar was that they worshipped an idol, said to have taken the form of a head or sometimes a black cat. The Fifth category of accusations states that the brothers practiced idol worship of a cat or a head.

I suspect the 19th century meme Baphomet essentially emerged (or rather was constructed) in the 19th century based on earlier fragments, and have been adopted by Satanists. I've also (by hearsay, don't cite me!) heard of its usage in Liberal Catholic founded neo-Gnostic churches, but I don't think it properly belongs to there. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 09:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The Latin texts are literally cited in the article. Are you objecting that "several" should be changed to a more specific "twice"? And I don't know who threw this useless "[no title cited]" graffiti over everything, but this needs to be fixed! Kramden (talk)

Anselm's letter
So, I went looking and found the medieval copy of Anselm of Ribemont's letter -- and the passage about Baphometh is not in it. https://mazarinum.bibliotheque-mazarine.fr/viewer/2569/?offset=#page=54&viewer=picture&o=bookmark&n=0&q= It is in copies of the letter from the 1660s onward, though. So, was it added later? Is the medieval copy incomplete? --2601:8C3:8001:3940:F8BF:8BE1:A5EC:4DF4 (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Barber and Bate cite this https://books.google.com/books?id=B-5PqubXqK0C&newbks=1&pg=PA159 where the passage exists. My Latin is not what it should be, but it looks like you are referring to a different letter altogether, this one: https://books.google.com/books?id=B-5PqubXqK0C&pg=PA144
 * Kramden (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

T
Baphomet is a deity allegedly worshipped by the Knights Templar[4] that subsequently became incorporated into various occult and mystical traditions. The name Baphomet appeared in trial transcripts for the Inquisition of the Knights Templar starting in 1307.[5] It first came into popular English usage in the 19th century during debate and speculation on the reasons for the suppression of the Templars.[6]

An 1856 depiction of the Sabbatic Goat from Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie by Éliphas Lévi.[1][2] The arms bear the Latin words SOLVE (dissolve) and COAGULA (coagulate).

An 1897 goat pentagram from La Clef de la Magie Noire by French occultist Stanislas de Guaita.[1][3] The words refer to Samael and Lilith. Since 1856, the name Baphomet has been associated with the "Sabbatic Goat" image drawn by Éliphas Lévi,[1][2][7] which contains binary elements representing the "symbolization of the equilibrium of opposites"[1] (e.g. half-human and half-animal, male and female, good and evil, etc.).[1][2] On one hand, Lévi's intention was to symbolize his concept of balance that was essential to his magnetistic notion of the Astral Light;[1][2] on the other hand, the Baphomet represents a tradition that should result in a perfect social order.[1][2] 2601:40A:4200:D530:0:0:0:7BAA (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Pythagorean pentacle
See here: http://wisdomofhypatia.com/OM/BA/PP.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.126.25 (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

No indication that Muhammadan Muslims called Mahomat, Bafomat.
"Raymond of Aguilers, a chronicler of the First Crusade, reports that the troubadours used the term Bafomet for Muhammad, and Bafumaria for a mosque."

Troubadour was a composer and performer of Old Occitan lyric poetry during the High Middle Ages.

Old Occitan, the language used by the troubadours, was the first Romance language with a literary corpus and had an enormous influence on the development of lyric poetry in other European languages.

Lyric poetry is a formal type of poetry which expresses personal emotions or feelings, typically spoken in the first person.

None of the above information indicates that Muhammadan Muslims themselves referred to Muhammad as Bafomet/Baphomet. The information actually indicates that Bafomet for Muhammad, and Bafumaria for a mosque were terms used solely by Troubadours who were of European descent and likely Christian.

Given that lyric poetry is not actually historical but is of a PERSONAL nature, I find it easy to believe in the possibility that the Christian troubadours were taking artistic liberties in exchanging the term Mahomet for Bafomet who was likely a pagan diety prior to Christianity's emergence. 96.227.208.23 (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Citation needed.... GenoV84 (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * No need to go into the ins and outs of poetry in this context. Just to be clear: What the article reports is that troubadours said Muslims called Muhammad Baphomet. The fact that troubadours sitting in southern France were not exactly experts on Islam or on Arabic should be self-evident. Quite clearly no Muslim ever called their house of worship a "Bafumarium". These are all very middlingly-informed European takes on a religion they did not care to understand, but were very quick to demonise.
 * What the article needs to be clear about, and which I tried to improve with some smaller edits myself, is that in the Middle Ages, we did have the idea of "Baphomet" floating around in Western Europe; but that it had nothing to do with any occult or satanistic notions which it was co-opted into in the 19th century -- it was simply a very badly distorted Occitan variant to the name and the figure of the prophet Muhammad.
 * The occult connotations are a secondary phenomenon as a consequence of the allegations of heresy and apostasy (by praying to Muhammad) levelled against the Knights Templar. Once the Templars had become a handily non-objecting projection space for all that occult floop that became so popular in the 1800s, the echo of Baphomet (as in a "deity" supposedly venerated by them) turned into something entirely different than a mispronounced Muhammad. Trigaranus (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Some points made by an anonymous contributor (better title, I hope)

 * I'm not sure what you're trying to tell us with this paragraph, though. (Trigaranus (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC))

Baphomet is a deity allegedly worshipped by the Knights Templar[3] that subsequently became incorporated into various occult and Western esoteric traditions.[4] The name Baphomet appeared in trial transcripts for the Inquisition of the Knights Templar starting in 1307.[5] It first came into popular English usage in the 19th century during debate and speculation on the reasons for the suppression of the Templar order.[3] Baphomet is a symbol of balance in various occult and mystical traditions, the origin of which some occultists have attempted to link with the Gnostics and Templars,[4] although occasionally purported to be a deity or a demon.[3] Since 1856 the name Baphomet has been associated with the "Sabbatic Goat" image drawn by Éliphas Lévi,[6] composed of binary elements representing the "symbolization of the equilibrium of opposites":[1] half-human and half-animal, male and female, good and evil, etc.[2] Lévi's intention was to symbolize his concept of balance, with Baphomet representing the goal of perfect social order.[2] 105.112.182.61 (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The official logo of The Satanic Temple.png

the information posted on baphomet wikipedia page is FALSE INFORMATION on who baphomet truly is
the information on the baphomet wikipedia page is FALSE INFORMATION on who baphomet truly is. Baphomet is NOT SATANIC he is strictly a pagan god and people need to know the real knowledge about him so I SUGGEST this information on here gets changed immediately!! Jeziahnightz619 (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

who baphomet truly is and what baphomet truly isnt
“The terrible Baphomet is, in fact, like all monstrous enigmas of ancient science, nothing more than an innocent and even pious hieroglyph.” - Éliphas Lévi in the 19th century

The mysterious origins of the legend Baphomet have been speculated upon by historians and researchers for many hundreds of years. There have been many erroneous claims that have been made, such as Baphomet represents Satan or evil, which is simply not true. My hopes are that the facts below and my previous articles that I have written will help illuminate the truth behind who this “horned god” truly represents.

In my previous article titled, The Meaning of Baphomet, I had detailed that the name Baphomet is derived from the phrase, TEM OHP AB (Temple omnium hominum pads abba), which is simply Latin for “father of the temple, universal peace of men.” TEM OHP AB spelled backwards is where we get the word “Baphomet.”

In the book, “The mysteries of magic: a digest of the writings of Eliphas Lévi by Éliphas Lévi and Arthur Edward Waite, it explains the reason why this name was chosen. Éliphas Lévi is also the artist who had given us the best known image of this Idol.

“The Baphomets of the Templars, whose names should be spelt kabbalistically backward, is composed of three abbreviations—TEM OHP AB, Temple omnium hominum pads abbas, the father of the temple, universal peace of men. According to some, it was a monstrous head, according to others, a goat-shaped demon. A sculptured casket unearthed in the ruins of an ancient commandry of the Templars was observed by antiquaries to be a baphometic figure, conformable in its attributes to our goat of Mendes and the androgyne of Khunrath. It is bearded, but with the entire body of a woman; in one hand it holds the sun, in the other the moon, joined to it by chains. This virile head is a beautiful allegory which attributes to thought alone, the first and creative cause. The head here represents mind, and the female body matter. The stars, bound to the human form and directed by that nature of which intelligence is the head, have also a sublime significance.

The terrible Baphomet is, in fact, like all monstrous enigmas of ancient science, nothing more than an innocent and even pious hieroglyph.

Let us declare emphatically to combat the remnants of manichaeanism; that Satan, as a superior personality and power, has no existence.

THE DEVIL IN BLACK MAGIC IS THE GREAT MAGIC AGENT EMPLOYED FOR EVIL PURPOSES BY A PERVERSE WILL.”

There you have the truth from one of the greatest authorities on Baphomet that the world has ever known. Éliphas Lévi graciously tells us point blank that Baphomet does not represent evil or the man-made entity we know of today as Satan. He clearly states that the image of Baphomet is nothing more than an innocent and even pious hieroglyph. In addition, Levi declares that Satan, as a superior personality and power, has no existence.

33rd Degree Freemason, Albert Pike had written in Morals and Dogma; “The Gnostics held that it [universal agent] composed the igneous [pertaining to fire] body of the Holy Spirit, and it was adored in the secret rites of the Sabbat or the Temple under the hieroglyphic figure of Baphomet or the hermaphroditic goat of Mendes .” [Pike, op. cit., p. 734, teaching of the 28th Degree]

However, unfortunately, many authors and researchers who have produced books, movies and articles have simply massacred the true meaning of this great horned God. What this has done over time, has just created more confusion to the point today that it appears most people equate Baphomet with evil or Satan, which is simply not true.

Manly P. Hall had written in his book, Dionysian Mysteries and Masonry that the image of Baphomet is NOT a Christian Devil but a symbol of the ancient Alchemists representing Nature and natures God being a Combination & Balance of Male andFemale forces, light and darkness;

“The Goat of Mendes or BAPHOMET whom the Templars were accused of worshipping is a Goat Headed deity, being formed of both male and female principles, with a Caduceus of Mercury in oplace of its Phallus.

One arm points up and one down, with the Latin ‘ Solve et Coagula’ written on them (meaning: ‘flow and ebb’)

This is NOT the image of a Christian Devil but a symbol of the ancient Alchemists representing Nature and natures God being a Combination & Balance of Male andFemale forces, light and darkness, moisture and dryness.

The very principle of Hermes Trismegitus: As Above So Below” is what is symbolized by BAPHOMET…”

If you think this symbol is evil or have been mislead, you are what is called a “non-initiate” who is considered “profane” to the secret mysteries and secret knowledge that is contained in such stories, words or images. As I stated above, this is the whole purpose of the kabbalist and priest scribes who use secret words or allegories in order to conceal the truth from the uninitiated.

Manly Hall had written in Baphomet: The Goat of Mendes (1936);

“The practice of Magick — either White or Black — depends upon the ability of the Adept to control the Universal Life Force – that which Eliphas Levi calls the great magical agent or astral light. By the manipulation of this fluidic Essence, the Phenomena of ‘Transcendentalism’ are thus produced.The famous Hermaphroditic (i.e. androgynous, male-female) Goat of Mendes was a Composite Creature formulated to symbolize this very astral Light.

It is identical with BAPHOMET, the mystic Pan Theos (‘god of All Nature’) of those disciples of ceremonial Magick… who probably obtained it from the Arabs.”

Baphomet is also a symbol of initiation into the secret mysteries. An idol or hieroglyph that represents the God Amon (Jupiter Amon or Amon-Ra) who is “The Hidden One,” “King of the Gods,” and the “Lord of the Thrones” of the visible and the invisible worlds. In addition, as I stated above, the meaning of Baphomet is “Father of the Temple, universal peace of men.” The “father” would be “Amon,“which is known in science as the hippocampus or Ammon’s Horn.

The temple would be your body along with your head etc. As it was said in Egypt; “The body is the house of God,” and one of the many proverbs is “Man, know thyself … and thou shalt know the gods.” When you know thyself, and live in harmony with nature, you are now one with God. Hence, you come to a point of “universal peace of men.”

In my articles titled, Ammon’s Horn and Amon – King of Gods and Lord of Thrones, I explained exactly what the God Amon Amons Horns Mosesrepresents and since Baphomet is Amon, this information all ties together. In these articles I detail how each of us humans has Baphomet or a hidden “God Amon” that sits in the middle of the brain that is part of the temporal lobe called the Ammon’s horn (Amuns Horn), also known as the hippocampus. In neuroanatomy, Ammon’s Horn is a metaphor that relates to the gods and the brain.

The image we see today of Baphomet is identified by the image of the ram which is actually one of the most important gods in theJupiter Ammon history of the Egyptian empire. The Egyptian/Greek deity known as Amon (Amon-Ra or Jupiter Amon) is sometimes represented as a ram of a blue color, and sometimes as a man with the horns of a ram, or wearing a cap with two high plumes.

This religion of Amon-Ra is the oldest noted in Egyptian antiquity, with the Amon-Ra priesthood being the most powerful clergy that Egypt has ever known. The God Amon was worshiped under the ram’s horns in the East for many thousands of years. The god Amon was tended by the priests of the great Theban temple of Karnak and also worshiped in Mendes, called Banebdjed (Ba of the lord of djed or “the Lord of Mendes”), who was the soul of Osiris.

Thebes was founded in 1500 BC by a Phoenician Prince named Cadmus. The meaning of Thebes is from the word Theba that signifies ‘Ark.’ The capital for their religion was located in the City of Light, or what we know of as Luxor. The God they had worshipped was god Amon-Ra (Jupiter-Amon). At the temple at Luxor there are many Ram Sphinxs that symbolize God Amon Ra.

On the Ptolemaic tablet he is called:

The King of Upper and Lower Egypt, the living spirit of Ba, the living spirit of Shu, the living spirit of Seb, the living spirit of Osiris, the spirit of spirits, the lord of lords, the heir in the city of Tonen (Mendes). In another part of the same text it is said of him: appearing on the horizon with four heads, illuminating heaven and earth, coming as Nile, causing the earth to live, and {giving) the air to mankind.

The Priesthood of Amon-Ra from Egypt were the main inheritors of this secret mystery religion that initiated very famous people such as Alexander the Great who is described in the Bible as a “A Ram on the Rampage”; in Daniel (8:3-4) - “Then I lifted my gaze and looked, and behold, a ram which had two horns was standing in front of the canal. Now the two horns were long, but one was longer than the other, with the longer one coming up last. 4 I saw the ram butting westward, northward, and southward, and no other beasts could stand before him, nor was there anyone to rescue from his power; but he did as he pleased and magnified himself.”

The ram’s horn since the most ancient times was always a sign of authority, power and dignity. The incarnation of Amon, a curled ram’s horn that is known today as a “shofar” was the only natural vocal instrument that the priests were permitted to use as recorded in the scripture. The Israelites and the Levite priests had also used the rams horn or “shofar.” The modern Jews today confess their sins in the month of September by blowing a ram’s horn to announce the ceremony which they say drives away the Devil.

The God Amon who was later called Amon-Ra or Jupiter Amon and today is known as Baphomet, is also in ancient Roman jupiter statuereligion and myth.

Jupiter (Latin: Iuppiter) or Jove is the king of the gods and the god of sky and thunder. The Romans regarded Jupiter as the equivalent of Greek Zeus, and in Latin literature and Roman art, the myths and iconography of Zeus are adapted under the name Iuppiter. The Latin name Iuppiter originated as a vocative compound of the Old Latin vocative *Iou and pater (“father”) and came to replace the Old Latin nominative case *Ious. Jove is a less common English formation based on Iov-, the stem of oblique cases of the Latin name. Linguistic studies identify the form *Iou-pater as deriving from the Indo-European vocative compound *Dyēu-pəter (meaning “O Father Sky-god”; nominative: *Dyēus-pətēr).

The Greek historian Herodotus credits Hesiod and Homer as not only being the first poets of Greece, but also that they had created for the Greeks a genealogy of the gods, which gave the gods their epithets. It appears that Homer and Hesiod had introduced many Gods into Greek mythology with their poetry, and with the end result possibly being that Jupiter Amon got lost in time or was voted out by other new prettier or physically pleasing Gods. Jupiter was the chief deity of Roman state religion throughout the Republican and Imperial eras, until the Empire came under Christian rule. As I stated in my previous articles titled, Isis – Goddess of Darkness, and Chaos and Isis Becomes the Virgin Mary, Christianity is based on the Cult or Religion of Isis that had spread from the East throughout the Roman Empire during the formative centuries of Christianity. The Cult of Isis is now part of the world’s largest religion known today as Catholicism where she is now known as the Queen of Heaven, the Blessed Virgin Mary.

This was when the light of the King of Gods and Lord of Thrones who represents the brightness of the day, Jupiter Amon was isis vulturehidden in the darkness of night under the veil of Isis. The name Isis means “Throne” or “She of the Throne.” Her headdress is frequently shown with a vulture resting on top of her head (throne) with horns holding what appears to be Jupiter Amon. In Egypt she was frequently called Man, and her totem there was a vulture.

If Jupiter Amon is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, then what would this make Isis? Could she be Amon’s vulture like Satan (adversary)? Hence, the enemy of man and the light for which she devours by concealing the truth that the God Amon resides upon our thrones under her veil. Isis declares, “I am Isis, the great Goddess, the Mistress of Magic, the Speaker of Spells.”

A myth reported as “Egyptian” in Gaius Julius Hyginus’ Poetic Astronomy that Pan in his goat-god aspect — was attacked by the monster Typhon, he dove into the Nile; the parts above the water remained a goat, but those under the water transformed into a fish.

In the book, “Psychology of the Unconscious: A Study of the Transformations and Symbolisms,” by Carl Gustav Jung and Beatrice M. Hinkle, we find the truth; that yes, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords does have an adversary and it appears to be Isis, who is also Typhon.

The Ammon’s Horn had special significance to our ancestors for many thousands of years and one testament of this would be the fact that they had worshiped the image of the ram who was sacred to Amon. This immortal fact can be found in the form of the ancient art that they left behind, that I feel helps prove to us today that they were showing us the Ammon’s Horns. That which is in the same exact locations on our heads where the hippocampus can be found. It is with these ancient images, allegorical stories and modern science, that we can now piece together this amazing story in order for the truth to shine brightly by honoring their great work.

Someday in the not so distant future, will these hidden legends such as the God Amon that were such a large part of Egyptian mythology, they will also become part of modern-day culture as we learn more about the science and power hidden in the mysterious hippocampus that is now coming to light. Facts, such as that of the head and horn of the ram which were symbolic of immortality, memory, activity and creative energy in us humans. Modern day revelations such as the fact that this region of the brain is associated with long-term memory storage and the hippocampal neurons known as place cells that play a major role in causing the sensation of familiarity known as déjà vu and reincarnation. It is said that when a small subset of our hippocampal neurons dies and is reborn; the mind is in a constant state of reincarnation.

The French Déjà vu, in English means “already seen” and it was Plato who had said that déjà vu is a real memory of events Baphometthat took place in a previous existence that proves the theory of reincarnation. Plato held in his beliefs that education was not new learned information, but a real memory of events that took place in a previous life. Platonic epistemology holds that knowledge is innate, so that learning is the development of ideas … Thus, when something is “learned” it is actually just “recalled. … The goal of Recollection is to get back to true Knowledge.

The God known today as Baphomet will forever be connected to the Knights Templars. But the facts are that this ram horned God was symbolized long before the advent of the Templars under such names as Amon, Amon-Ba or Ra, Jupiter Amon and also as the infamous pious hieroglyph made famous by Elphias Levi. An image of an ancient deity that is actually a God who resides inside of each and every one of us.

Isn’t it time that you connected with “The Amen, the true and faithful witness,” Rev. i. 14 or Baphomet? For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. And so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God. - 2 Corinthians 1:20

Moe/Gnostic Warrior Jeziahnightz619 (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm completely unrelated to whatever is happening, but please, read this policy page. WP:TEXTWALL Sneezless ( talk ) ( contribs ) 16:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * i am editing the information on the baphomet wikipedia page cause the information that was on it was False baphomet is not satanic and people should know the real information about the pagan god known as baphomet Jeziahnightz619 (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

WHY IS MY EDITED INFORMATION BEING REVERTED WHEN THE ORIGINAL INFO OF BAPHOMET IS FALSE INFO??
THIS IS NOT COOL THE INFORMATION I MADE ON THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE FOR BAPHOMET SHOULD NOT BE GETTING REVERTED BACK TO FALSE INFORMATION IT HAD ON IT SOMEONE BETTER FIX THIS MESS AND FIX IT ASAP Jeziahnightz619 (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you providing reliable sources? Also, only one edit to the page by you has been reverted, most likely due to you blanking most of the page. Finally, please remember that Wikipedia is meant to have a neutral point of view. Sneezless ( talk ) ( contribs ) 16:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * YES I AM Jeziahnightz619 (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Original research is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia policy. Please note that you may be blocked from editing if you contain to disruptively edit. Sneezless ( talk ) ( contribs ) 16:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * read what i posted here in this wiki talk where it says who baphomet truly is and what baphomet truly isnt that is the reliable information ive been posting to the wiki page of baphomet cause it is the true information on who and what the baphomet is and isn't, im getting tired of people using false information on this kind of subject when it comes to pagan deities and it needs to stop people need to stop labeling everything satanic when its not!! Jeziahnightz619 (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if you have evidence in the talk page of an article, it needs to be backed up by other sources, which need to be referenced to in the text. While the issue may be one of perspective in this case, and you may be correct, if you can't back your knowledge up with reliable sources, it has no place in an article. The policies I refer to here can be found at WP:NOR and WP:RS. Sneezless ( talk ) ( contribs ) 17:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * the source of this information i posted is from gnostic warrior moe bedard from gnosticwarrior.com/who-is-baphomet.html Jeziahnightz619 (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * and yes, it is a reliable source of information on baphomet Jeziahnightz619 (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Self-published sources, including blogs, are not considered reliable sources under WP:RS. Sneezless ( talk ) ( contribs ) 17:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * the original information on the wiki page of baphomet is false and needs to be changed Jeziahnightz619 (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you wish to change the article, use WP:CITE. Changing the article is fine, doing so repeatedly with unsourced content is not, and is considered disruptive. Sneezless ( talk ) ( contribs ) 17:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * you know what how bout this you take the information i posted and you make the changes with it on the wikipedia page of baphomet how bout that? then that way the correct information wont be considered unreliable or vandalism etc since wikipedia wants to soooo tedious on corrected information Jeziahnightz619 (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is not who is making the changes, but whether the information used to make those changes is reliable or not. As I have said previously, blogs are not considered reliable under WP:RS. What you doing was considered disruptive because you did so multiple times despite your edits being reverted. If you wish to improve Baphomet, please use sources that are considered reliable under WP:RS. Sneezless ( talk ) ( contribs ) 17:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Gnostic Heads and Severed Idols
He did not realise that Gnostics did not have idols.

I have removed this sentence as it is both uncited and is historically incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SerpentOfDarkness (talk • contribs) 12:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Gnostics" covers a wide range of groups and many had idols, larper. Most notably many ophite cults 194.207.112.171 (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * why are you replying to a 15 year old section? Sneezless ( talk ) ( contribs ) 16:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Opening sentences are factually incorrect
There is no substantive evidence proving the Knights Templar worshipped Baphomet. It's complete misinformation￼ 73.126.242.138 (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You caught the word "allegedly" in there, right? Please tell me you did. Baphomet came to prominence as supposed deity precisely because the King of France accused the Templars of worshipping him. Does not mean they did. That's what the word "allegedly" does there. It's an adverb. Meaning it's an allegation. Trigaranus (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-Protect
What do you think guys, time to semi-protect this article? Too many silly edits of late. Trigaranus (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: the revision history of this article is enough to demonstrate that it requires at least semi-protection due to the continuous disruptive editing by several anonymous IPs that has occurred since March 2023. GenoV84 (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Creating redirects of typos
Do you think it's worth creating redirects for common typos of Baphomet, or is that mostly pointless? The typos I'm thinking of are mostly missed letters, like Baphmet or Baphoet. Sneezless ( talk ) ( contribs ) 16:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)