In a recent video, controversial streamer Sneako argues that Christmas and Easter are more about Roman cultural traditions than the actual teachings of Jesus. He’s not alone. Arguments like this are made often in popular media.
At first glance, claims like Sneako’s seem provocative and compelling. But a closer examination reveals a mix of valid observations, historical inaccuracies, and misleading conclusions.
A Partial Truth
In the video clip, Sneako explains that Christmas and Easter have “nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus.” Although it’s true that there is no command in the Bible to set aside a specific date to celebrate the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ, we nevertheless celebrate these events because of who he is, what he did, and what that means for us. So, in this sense, these holidays have everything to do with the teachings of Jesus.
Christianity has long interacted with local customs across centuries. As it spread, it often absorbed and adapted cultural practices, sometimes regionally and other times for the Church as a whole. So yes, it is accurate to say that these holidays are not purely “biblical” in their outward form.
Where the Argument Falls Apart
The problem lies in Sneako’s implication that because these traditions include cultural elements, they are somehow fake or disconnected from the Christian faith.
This is a logical leap that doesn’t hold up.
Meaning is not determined solely by origin. A tradition can evolve while still carrying deep significance for the people who practice it. For millions around the world, Christmas is not about trees or presents. It’s about the birth of Jesus, generosity, family, and reflection. The same applies to Easter and its focus on the Resurrection and spiritual renewal.
Secular expressions of these holidays have minimized the centrality of Jesus but simply reducing them to “Roman pagan culture” ignores historical facts as well as the reality of those who celebrate them with genuine belief and intention.
Culture and Faith from a Catholic Perspective
The idea that religion and culture should be separated is mistaken. The Catholic Church has always understood the gospel not as something outside human culture, but as something meant to enter into and transform it, just as “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). As the Church teaches, the Faith is to be “proclaimed, celebrated, and lived in all cultures” in a way that does not abolish them, but redeems and fulfills them (CCC 1204).
This is why Catholic traditions develop over time. Feasts, devotions, and customs arise as the faithful seek to live out and celebrate the mysteries of Jesus more deeply within their own historical and cultural contexts. These expressions may vary from place to place, but they all point back to the same unchanging reality of the Catholic Faith.
Rather than seeing culture and religion as opposing forces, we understand culture as a vessel that expresses and transmits the Faith across generations. Tradition is not a departure from authenticity, but one of the ways the Faith is lived and preserved.
Correcting a Few Factual Errors
In the video clip, Sneako explains:
I want [Jesus] to be remembered properly. I don’t want his legacy to be remembered based off of Roman bunny fertility eggs and winter solstice pagan traditions. Nope. December 25th was not Jesus’ birthday. In fact, the pope said himself this was to adopt Roman traditions with it.
Let’s start with eggs and bunnies. The modern idea that Easter comes from pagan fertility symbols like rabbits and eggs is largely a retroactive myth. Eggs had some symbolic meaning in antiquity, rabbits less so, and the pairing of the two is much later and culturally developed, not something rooted in Roman religion.
On the date of Christmas, it is largely accepted that December 25 is likely not the actual date of Jesus’ birth. It is the date on which we celebrate his birth. And the historical evidence for claims like the one Sneako makes is incredibly thin.
The Chronology of 354—an illustrated calendar produced in the fourth century for a wealthy Christian named Valentinus—is the earliest explicit record of a pagan festival on December 25. It does not prove that the date originated as a pagan celebration, and it comes after evidence of the Christian use of that date.
Lastly, I am unaware of any pope “admitting” that the date was chosen specifically to replace a pagan Roman celebration. In his book Spirit of the Liturgy, Pope Benedict XVI explained,
The claim used to be made that December 25 developed in opposition to the Mithras myth, or as a Christian response to the cult of the unconquered sun promoted by Roman emperors in the third century in their efforts to establish a new imperial religion. However, these old theories can no longer be sustained (105-107).
Even if the available evidence supported the idea that Christians started these holidays to supplant existing pagan celebrations, one needs to understand how the Catholic religion has interacted with the various cultural expressions it has encountered over the last 2,000 years before we throw the baby out with the bath water.
A Half-Truth Doesn’t Cut It
Sneako’s argument follows a familiar pattern: take a partial truth and frame it as a “gotcha” moment. By pointing out that something isn’t biblical, or containing elements derived in part from some non-Catholic pagan religion, he suggests it lacks authenticity. This approach is effective for grabbing attention, but it sacrifices nuance. It simplifies religion, history, and culture into black-and-white conclusions.
In practice, these holidays are a blend of religious meaning and cultural tradition. Some people engage more with the spiritual aspects, whereas others connect more with the cultural ones. For most, it’s a combination of both.
In the end, the value of a tradition isn’t solely determined by how pure its biblical origins are. It is determined in large part by what it represents for the people who practice it.
And in the Catholic tradition, Christmas and Easter are all about Jesus.