Paganism & Satanism Are Fake!

 

Paganism, Neo-Paganism, Satanism, and Modern Spiritual Movements:

An Analysis of Authenticity, Continuity, and the Limits of Reconstruction”

---

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Historical Paganism and the Evidence Problem

3. Neo-Paganism: Reconstruction or Reinvention

4. Why I Believe Modern Paganism Is “Fake”

5. Counterarguments and Alternative Views

6. Christianity, Paganism, and the Charge of Imitation

7. Modern Satanism and the Question of Continuity

8. New Age and Modern Spiritualists

9. Conclusion

10. Footnotes

11. Bibliography

---

1. Introduction

Paganism once referred to the diverse pre-Christian religions spread across Europe and the Mediterranean. Today it operates as a broad label for revived, reconstructed, or reimagined belief systems. When I look at modern paganism and its related movements, I do not see continuity with the ancient world. I see attempts to rebuild religions that left behind too little evidence to recover.

My claim is straightforward. Ancient pagan religions cannot be reconstructed with meaningful accuracy. Too much was lost, and the surviving material is fragmentary. Because of this, I argue that modern paganism is fake in the historical sense. It is a contemporary creation, shaped by modern imagination rather than preserved tradition.

This paper outlines the reasons for that conclusion, considers counterarguments, examines the frequent claim that Christianity copied paganism, and extends my analysis to modern Satanism, New Age spirituality, and contemporary spiritualism.

---

2. Historical Paganism and the Evidence Problem

Ancient pagan religions were local, oral, and diverse. They did not rely on centralized scriptures or structured theological systems. Most of what we know comes from:

• archaeological remains

• inscriptions

• second-hand Greek, Roman, or Christian accounts

• myths recorded centuries after the practices they describe

As Ronald Hutton notes, many ancient pagan practices “vanished without record, leaving only the faintest marks in the archaeological record.”¹

This produces a fundamental problem. We have objects and stories, but not the internal structure of the religions that produced them. Without preserved liturgies, priestly traditions, doctrinal systems, or continuous oral transmission, we cannot reconstruct their worldviews.

---

3. Neo-Paganism: Reconstruction or Reinvention

Modern neo-pagan movements—including Wicca, Druidry, and reconstructionist traditions—claim inspiration from the ancient world. Many describe their systems as revivals of “the old ways.”

Historically, however, most of these movements originated in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Romantic nationalism, occult revival, Theosophy, and modern esoteric literature played far larger roles in shaping them than archaeology or ancient texts. Wicca, for example, was crafted by Gerald Gardner in the twentieth century.

Reconstructionist groups attempt to use scholarly methods, but the available sources are incomplete, contradictory, and often written by Christian scribes long after the pre-Christian period. When evidence runs out, practitioners fill the gaps with subjective interpretation. This does not make their spirituality illegitimate, but it does make it modern rather than continuous with antiquity.

---

4. Why I Believe Modern Paganism Is “Fake”

My position rests on three main points.

First, ancient pagan religions cannot be accurately reconstructed. The evidence is insufficient.

Second, modern pagan traditions rely heavily on invention. They mix folklore, personal preference, modern spirituality, and selective fragments of ancient material.

Third, claims of continuity lack historical grounding. When someone says they follow “the old religion,” that claim is built on speculation rather than transmission.

This is why I describe modern paganism as fake in the historical sense. I am not attacking individuals. I am addressing the claim that modern practices continue ancient systems. In contrast, Christianity—especially in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions—maintains documented continuity from the first century.

---

5. Counterarguments and Alternative Views

Several counterarguments deserve fair consideration.

Reconstruction still holds value.
Some argue that religion evolves and that even partial reconstruction can be meaningful.

Authenticity is experiential.
Practitioners often emphasize personal spirituality over historical continuity.

Christianity adopted pagan customs.
Critics assert that Christian celebrations echo older pagan festivals.

Authenticity is a social construct.
Some scholars avoid evaluating authenticity because traditions change over time.

These arguments matter, yet they do not alter my conclusion that continuity requires evidence, and modern paganism lacks that evidence.

---

6. Christianity, Paganism, and the Charge of Imitation

A recurrent claim is that Christianity copied pagan religions or repackaged pagan festivals such as Christmas, Easter, or Halloween. I reject this argument for the same reason I question neo-pagan reconstruction: the evidence for ancient pagan practices is too fragmentary for such conclusions.

Similarities between cultural practices do not prove imitation. Symbolic overlap is common across civilizations. To demonstrate borrowing, one must show clear lines of transmission, and the evidence does not support such claims.

This is also why I find many neo-pagan accusations ironic. When some claim that Christians “stole” their holidays, I cannot take the claim seriously. In my view, they do not even possess the knowledge needed to make that accusation. They are building modern belief systems while insisting they represent ancient traditions. They claim continuity with pre-Christian pagans despite having no unbroken lineage, no preserved liturgy, and no authoritative doctrinal record.

From my perspective, this is why I often respond with disbelief or even laughter when neo-paganists insist that Christmas, Easter, or Halloween were taken from them. The irony is that they themselves do not know with certainty what historical paganism involved, because no one does. The evidence is too incomplete. So when they accuse Christianity of borrowing, they build an argument on traditions they are inventing in the present while claiming those traditions are ancient.

Christianity, by contrast, possesses written documentation, preserved liturgies, and apostolic continuity. The accusation of imitation rests on assumptions about a pagan past that cannot be reconstructed with confidence.

---

7. Modern Satanism and the Question of Continuity

My position on modern Satanism follows the same reasoning. These movements claim the mantle of an ancient adversarial tradition, but no such tradition existed. Before Christianity, Judaism portrayed Satan not as a cosmic enemy but as an accuser and tester under divine authority. No ancient cults worshipped Satan, and no rituals or liturgies existed around him.

The concept of Satan as God’s adversary develops within later Christian theology. Modern Satanism therefore cannot claim to continue any ancient religious system. It is a modern ideological creation, not a historical tradition.

---

8. New Age and Modern Spiritualists

New Age spirituality and modern spiritualism present themselves as carriers of “ancient wisdom,” yet their teachings are modern constructs. They combine elements from Hinduism, Buddhism, Hermeticism, Western esotericism, psychology, and personal intuition. Their references to antiquity are broad and often vague.

Modern spiritualism—channeling, energy healing, and spirit communication—arose in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, not in the ancient world. New Age beliefs often use Eastern concepts detached from the cultural and doctrinal frameworks that give them meaning.

From my perspective, these movements do not continue any ancient tradition. They borrow selectively, reinterpret freely, and then describe the result as timeless truth. They represent modern spirituality framed in archaic language.

---

9. Conclusion

My argument centers on authenticity and continuity. Ancient pagan religions cannot be reconstructed because the evidence is too fragmentary. Modern paganism—though meaningful for its practitioners—is a recent invention rather than a continuation of pre-Christian religion.

This same evidentiary gap undermines the claim that Christianity copied paganism. If ancient pagan religions cannot be reconstructed, then assertions of borrowing lack a foundation.

Modern Satanism lacks continuity because no ancient cult of Satan existed. New Age and spiritualist movements likewise present modern ideas as ancient teachings without historical support.

For me, continuity supported by evidence is the dividing line. Christianity maintains it. Modern paganism, Satanism, and New Age spirituality do not.

Further Clarification: Evil, Power, and Why Christians Do Not Need to Fear

While I reject modern paganism and Satanism as historically artificial and theologically empty reconstructions, I do not deny what Scripture clearly teaches: evil is real. The Bible affirms the existence of fallen spiritual beings, what Paul calls “the powers” or “principalities,” but it never presents them as rival gods or autonomous sources of power equal to God. Evil exists, but it exists as a defeated reality, not a competing kingdom.

Scripture is remarkably restrained in how it speaks about Satan. He is a tempter (Matt. 4:1), an accuser (Rev. 12:10), and a liar (John 8:44), but never a rival deity. Paul explicitly states that Christ “disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in the cross” (Col. 2:15). Whatever limited influence evil once exercised has been decisively broken by Christ’s death and resurrection. For believers, fear of occult forces makes no theological sense. As Paul insists, “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Rom. 8:31).

This is why I reject exaggerated views of Satan’s power, whether they come from alarmist Christian preaching or from neo-pagan and occult subcultures that imagine dark forces as potent, active, and dangerous. Scripture does not support this worldview. James is blunt: “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7). A being that flees human resistance empowered by grace is not a cosmic rival.

Augustine and the Illusion of Pagan Power

St. Augustine addressed these questions directly in The City of God, written precisely to dismantle pagan claims about the power of the old gods. Augustine argues that pagan deities are either nonexistent or fallen angels whose power is strictly limited and entirely subject to God’s sovereignty. He writes:

“The demons have no power except that which is given them from above, and even that is turned by divine providence to the good of the faithful.”
(City of God, Book X)

For Augustine, pagan rituals and magic are not dangerous because they work, but because they deceive. They promise power where none exists. Evil’s primary weapon is illusion, not force.

Aquinas: Satan Is Not a Rival God

St. Thomas Aquinas further clarifies this in the Summa Theologiae. Aquinas explicitly rejects the idea that demons or Satan can exercise power independently of God:

“Demons cannot perform miracles, but only certain effects by the application of natural causes.”
(ST I, q.114, a.4)

In other words, demons cannot override nature, grace, or human freedom. They cannot compel the will. They cannot create. They cannot save or damn on their own. Aquinas consistently emphasizes that evil is parasitic, not creative. It has no substance of its own.

This is crucial for understanding why witchcraft, dark magic, and occult practices have no real power. Even if such practices claim spiritual force, they are ultimately empty gestures directed toward beings who themselves possess no autonomous authority.

Vatican II and the Victory of Christ

The Second Vatican Council reinforces this perspective by centering all spiritual conflict within the victory of Christ. Gaudium et Spes acknowledges the reality of evil but places it firmly within an already-decided battle:

“For a monumental struggle against the powers of darkness pervades the whole history of man… Nevertheless, the Lord Himself came to free and strengthen man, renewing him inwardly.”
(Gaudium et Spes, §13)

The Council does not encourage fear or obsession with dark forces. Instead, it emphasizes Christian confidence rooted in Christ’s triumph. Evil exists, but it does not reign.

Modern Scholars and Historians

Modern biblical scholars echo this restrained, demythologized understanding. N.T. Wright notes that the New Testament treats “the powers” not as mythic gods but as created realities now judged and defeated by Christ.¹ Likewise, historian and theologian Jeffrey Burton Russell, a leading scholar on the history of Satan, argues that popular images of Satan as a quasi-god owe more to medieval imagination and modern folklore than to biblical theology.²

Even scholars critical of Christianity, such as Bart Ehrman, acknowledge that early Christian texts never present Satan as God’s equal, but as a subordinate and ultimately doomed figure within Jewish apocalyptic thought.³

Why I Reject Fear-Based Christianity

All of this shapes my own perspective. I do not fear pagan gods because they do not exist. I do not fear Satan because he is not sovereign. And I do not fear witchcraft or “dark magic” because Christianity has never taught that such things possess real power over those in Christ.

The Gospel does not call believers to paranoia, but to confidence. Jesus did not defeat darkness partially or temporarily. He defeated it definitively. As Paul writes, “Nothing in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:39).

That includes demons, false gods, and every imagined dark power.

---

Suggested Biblical Texts for Further Study

• Genesis 3

• Job 1–2

• John 8:44

• Luke 10:17–20

• Colossians 2:13–15

• Ephesians 6:10–12

• James 4:7

• 1 John 4:4

• Revelation 12; 20

---

10. Footnotes

1. Ronald Hutton, The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991).

2. Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (London: Penguin, 1967).

---

11. Bibliography

Hutton, Ronald. The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles. Blackwell, 1991.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-pagan-religions-of-the-ancient-british-isles-9780631189466

Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. Penguin, 1967.
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/54907/the-early-church-by-chadwick-henry

MacCulloch, J. A. The Religion of the Ancient Celts. Constable, 1911.
https://archive.org/details/religionancient00maccuoft

Ward, Graham. The Christian Tradition. Cambridge University Press.
https://www.cambridge.org

Eliade, Mircea. A History of Religious Ideas. University of Chicago Press.
https://press.uchicago.edu

Christianity is the Worship of Serapis Rebranded: The Hadrianic Letter and the Myth of Christianity’s Connection to Serapis

 Some critics of Christianity argue that it is merely an evolution or rebranding of the worship of the Greco-Egyptian deity Serapis. They often point to a letter attributed to the Roman Emperor Hadrian as evidence for this claim. But is there any truth to this assertion? And more importantly, is the Hadrianic letter a reliable or authentic historical source? Let’s explore this argument from multiple angles to separate fact from speculation.

Bust of Serapis. Marble, Roman copy after a Greek original from the 4th century BC, stored in the Serapaeum of Alexandria.

The theory that Christianity is derived from, or influenced by, the worship of the Greco-Egyptian deity Serapis is a topic of historical speculation and debate. Proponents of this theory suggest parallels between the two belief systems, often pointing to cultural syncretism in the ancient world. However, this idea has been widely challenged and largely dismissed by historians and scholars. Below, we explore the claims of proponents, the content of the Hadrianic letter, and the reasons the theory is debunked by opponents and objective historians.

Image of Jesus Christ the King

---

The Theory and Proponents’ Arguments

Proponents of the theory argue that Christianity, particularly in its early stages, was influenced by existing Greco-Roman and Egyptian religious traditions. Serapis, a syncretic deity created during the reign of Ptolemy I (305–283 BCE), combined aspects of the Egyptian god Osiris and the Greek god Zeus, serving as a unifying religious figure in a multicultural Alexandria. Several points are used to support the claim of a connection between Christianity and Serapis:

1. Syncretism in the Roman World:

   • Early Christianity arose in a context where religions and cultural beliefs often blended. Alexandria, an early hub of Christian thought, was also a center for the worship of Serapis. Proponents argue that this environment could have facilitated a fusion of ideas.

2. Visual and Conceptual Parallels:

   • Serapis was depicted as a benevolent, salvific deity with universal appeal, traits that resonate with the portrayal of Christ. Both were seen as healers and associated with resurrection.
   • Serapis' temple in Alexandria (the Serapeum) and early Christian churches are said to share architectural similarities.

3. The Hadrianic Letter:

   • One of the most frequently cited pieces of evidence comes from a purported letter by Emperor Hadrian (76–138 CE), which states:

     "Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle, and continually wafted about by every breath of rumor. The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those who call themselves Bishops of Christ are devoted to Serapis."
     Proponents claim this letter indicates an overlap between Christian and Serapis worshippers in the early 2nd century.

4. Transition to Monotheism:

   • Some proponents suggest that Serapis was a step toward monotheistic worship, making the transition to Christianity easier for followers.

---

Counterarguments and Scholarly Rebuttal

Objective historians and critics of the Serapis-Christianity connection provide strong rebuttals, based on historical, theological, and archaeological evidence:

1. Historical Context of Hadrian’s Letter:

   • Scholars doubt the reliability of the Hadrianic letter. It may be apocryphal or reflect Hadrian’s sarcastic tone about Alexandrian religious syncretism, rather than a genuine claim of equivalence between Serapis and Christ.
   • The statement likely reflects the coexistence of religious communities in Alexandria rather than evidence of doctrinal overlap.

2. Distinct Theologies:

   • Christianity is rooted in Judaism, with a monotheistic worldview and a linear concept of history. Serapis worship, on the other hand, was polytheistic and tied to Greco-Egyptian cosmology.
   • The figure of Jesus Christ is unique in his role as the Jewish Messiah, his death and resurrection, and his teachings, which lack direct analogs in Serapis worship.

3. Lack of Direct Evidence:

   • Despite the claims, there is no concrete evidence of early Christian texts or doctrines borrowing from Serapis worship. The resemblance of Serapis' benevolent traits to Jesus is seen as coincidental or reflective of broader cultural archetypes rather than direct influence.

4. Alexandrian Context:

   • The city of Alexandria was a melting pot of religious ideas, but this does not mean Christianity borrowed directly from Serapis worship. Instead, early Christian apologists, such as Clement of Alexandria, actively opposed Greco-Egyptian paganism, including Serapis worship.

5. Historical Development of Christianity:

   • The origins of Christianity are well-documented in Jewish Messianic traditions and the life of Jesus in Roman-occupied Judea, with no evidence of Serapis playing a role in these developments.

---

Modern Historical Consensus

The modern scholarly consensus rejects the idea that Christianity is derived from the worship of Serapis. While early Christianity did develop in a world where syncretism was common, its core doctrines, texts, and practices are firmly rooted in the Jewish tradition and the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Hadrianic letter is generally interpreted as an observation of Alexandrian religious culture rather than evidence of a direct relationship between Christianity and Serapis worship.

---

Conclusion

The theory that Christianity is the religion of Serapis is an intriguing but speculative hypothesis that has not held up under scholarly scrutiny. The Hadrianic letter offers an interesting insight into the religious dynamics of 2nd-century Egypt, but it does not substantiate claims of direct influence or equivalence between Serapis and Christ. While syncretism shaped the cultural and religious environment of the Roman Empire, the unique theological and historical roots of Christianity make it a distinct religious tradition.

____________________________________________

The authenticity of the Hadrianic letter regarding the connection between Serapis worship and Christianity has been a matter of debate among historians. While the letter has been transmitted in ancient sources, particularly in the works of the 4th-century historian Flavius Vopiscus, it is widely regarded by modern scholars as questionable or even a forgery. Below are the reasons and context for this assessment.

---

Source and Content of the Letter

The letter is purportedly written by the Roman Emperor Hadrian (117–138 CE) to his brother-in-law Servianus, describing the religious syncretism in Egypt. It contains the statement:

"Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle, and continually wafted about by every breath of rumor. The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those who call themselves Bishops of Christ are devoted to Serapis."

This passage has been interpreted by some as evidence of a close association between early Christians and the worship of Serapis.

---

Arguments for the Letter Being a Forgery

1. Flavius Vopiscus’ Credibility:

   • The letter is preserved in the writings of Flavius Vopiscus, one of the authors of the Historia Augusta, a collection of Roman imperial biographies. The Historia Augusta is notorious for including fabrications, spurious documents, and fictionalized anecdotes.
   • Many historians regard Vopiscus as an unreliable source, prone to embellishing or outright inventing historical details.

2. Anachronistic Tone:

   • The letter's language and content seem inconsistent with what is known of Hadrian's style and the religious dynamics of his time.
   • The conflation of Christians with Serapis worshippers appears more reflective of a later period when Christian apologetics and anti-pagan polemics were intensifying, particularly in the 3rd or 4th centuries.

3. Lack of Independent Corroboration:

   • No other contemporaneous sources from Hadrian’s time or shortly afterward confirm the letter’s content or sentiments.
   • The idea of Christians being closely associated with Serapis worship does not align with early Christian writings or Roman records about Christian persecution.

4. Sarcastic or Exaggerated Tone:

   • Even if the letter were authentic, it may have been written sarcastically or hyperbolically to criticize the religious diversity and perceived instability of Alexandria. This would make it a rhetorical flourish rather than a factual statement about the equivalence of Serapis worship and Christianity.

---

Arguments Supporting Authenticity

Some scholars and enthusiasts argue that the letter reflects genuine observations by Hadrian about the chaotic and eclectic religious environment of Egypt, particularly Alexandria. Hadrian was known for his interest in and tolerance of different religions, and the letter could have been an attempt to describe Alexandrian religious practices in a critical tone. However, this perspective is generally a minority view.

---

Modern Scholarly Consensus

The prevailing view among historians is that the Hadrianic letter is either:

1. A forgery inserted into the Historia Augusta for literary or political purposes during the 3rd or 4th centuries, or
2. An embellishment of a genuine letter, with the controversial passage about Serapis and Christ being an addition by later writers.

This conclusion aligns with the broader skepticism surrounding much of the Historia Augusta, which includes other dubious claims and fabricated documents.

---

Conclusion

The Hadrianic letter is likely a forgery or at least heavily embellished, particularly in the sections connecting Serapis worship with Christianity. While it remains an interesting artifact of ancient historiography, it is not considered a reliable historical source. Its content tells us more about later Roman perceptions of Christianity and pagan religions than about any actual connection between Serapis worship and early Christianity.

_________________________________________________________

The Hadrianic letter linking Christians with the worship of Serapis is a contentious piece of historical evidence, with modern scholarship casting significant doubt on its authenticity. The letter, preserved in the Historia Augusta, claims that the worshippers of Serapis were also Christians, and that Christian bishops were devoted to Serapis. However, most modern historians believe this letter to be a forgery or heavily interpolated during the 4th century, centuries after Hadrian's reign (117–138 CE)​

Sacred-Texts

​

GotQuestions.org

​

Wikisource, the free library

.

Arguments for Inauthenticity

1. Source Issues: The letter is part of the Historia Augusta, a notoriously unreliable collection of imperial biographies known for fabrications and spurious documents. Many of its supposed letters and official records are considered later creations​

   Sacred-Texts
   ​
   GotQuestions.org
   .

2. Historical Context and Late Additions: Scholars have identified linguistic and contextual clues that suggest the letter was not written during Hadrian's time. Instead, it likely reflects later 4th-century religious polemics, when Christian apologists were more engaged in countering claims of pagan influence​

   Sacred-Texts
   ​
   stephan huller's observations
   .

3. Syncretistic Observations or Satire: Even if authentic, Hadrian’s comments may have been sarcastic or exaggerated observations of the eclectic religious scene in Alexandria, where syncretism and cross-pollination between religions were common. The statement likely refers to the coexistence of Christians and Serapis worshippers rather than doctrinal overlap​

   Bryn Mawr Classical Review
   ​
   GotQuestions.org
   .

Connections Between Serapis and Christ

Serapis, a Greco-Egyptian deity created under Ptolemy I to unify Greek and Egyptian religious traditions, was associated with healing, fertility, and resurrection—qualities that some claim parallel Jesus Christ. Proponents of a connection argue:

• Serapis' visual iconography, featuring a bearded, majestic figure, resembles later depictions of Christ.
• Both Serapis and Jesus were associated with universal salvation and healing​
  GotQuestions.org
  ​
  stephan huller's observations
  .

However, this argument fails under scrutiny:

• Early Christian theology and Christ’s roots in Judaism diverge sharply from the polytheistic and Hellenistic framework of Serapis worship.
• Claims that Serapis was called "Christus" or "Chrestus" are not supported by credible ancient sources, and the term "Christ" predates Serapis worship by centuries​
  GotQuestions.org
  ​
  stephan huller's observations
  .

The Hadrianic Letter and Its Legacy

Despite its questionable origins, the letter has contributed to speculative theories about Christianity's pagan influences. Historians such as Marco Rizzi and others argue that such claims ignore the distinct Jewish roots and theological uniqueness of Christianity. The letter's reference to shared devotion may simply reflect the chaotic religious syncretism of Alexandria, where different traditions often borrowed language and symbols from one another​

Sacred-Texts

​

Bryn Mawr Classical Review

​

GotQuestions.org

.

Conclusion

The Hadrianic letter does not hold up as reliable evidence for any meaningful link between the worship of Serapis and early Christianity. While both traditions shared space in Alexandria and may have adopted some common cultural motifs, the core theology and origins of Christianity remain firmly rooted in Jewish Messianic traditions. For these reasons, the idea of Christianity as "the religion of Serapis" is dismissed by most credible scholars.