James Talarico's crazy Gospel of Thomas teaching: 10 Qs with Mike Winger (Ep 72)
Credibility score: 68/100 — Mostly Credible. Mixed credibility - some claims are solid, others need verification.
BSmeter analyzed "James Talarico's crazy Gospel of Thomas teaching: 10 Qs with Mike Winger (Ep 72)" and rated it 68/100 for credibility (a BS score of 32/100 — mostly credible), on 2026-04-14. Its weakest claim — "Gospel of Thomas was originally in Bible but removed by authorities" — scored 10/100 and was flagged as bs. 20 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 20 claims analyzed: 1 scored under 40, 7 between 40 and 69, and 12 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Politicians misusing Bible is pet peeve, Talarico egregious example — Opinion (50/100)
At 0:02
Pet peeve alert on Bible misuse by pols — fair game for commentary, but 'egregious' is pure vibe check 👀🙄
Why this score: Personal opinion on Bible misuse, not a factual claim. Key points:
- Speaker admits limited knowledge ('don't know a lot about this guy')
- References vague headlines about Texas politics
- Sets up critique of Talarico's Gospel of Thomas take, which we'll see later
Original quote: “Um it is when um well I mean in general people misuse the Bible but in particular when politicians do it when they do it that is a particular pet peeve and this is a good example of that. Um it's a very egregious example of James I think his name is Talerico. Now I've been very very busy for many…”
Turning Texas Democrat would be a tragedy for biblical Christians — Opinion (50/100)
At 0:30
Dropping 'tragedy' like Texas flipping blue ends the apocalypse — it's just politics, not the rapture 👀🙄💀
Why this score: Pure opinion on political outcomes. No factual dispute possible here.
- Texas has been Republican stronghold since 1994, but Democrats are fielding candidates for 2026.
- Speaker frames it through personal biblical lens; valid worldview but not objective truth.
*Flipping states happens — not inherently tragic.*
Original quote: “"Oh, he's going to turn Texas Democrat and things like that, which would be uh as a Christian who has a biblical worldview, that would be a tragedy." Um, but he's also says crazy stuff”
Gospel of Thomas Saying 22: make male/female one to enter kingdom — Verified (100/100)
At 2:02
Quote is pixel-perfect from Thomas 22 — can't even nitpick, I'm furious it's this accurate 😡✅🔥
Why this score: Direct quote from Gospel of Thomas Saying 22 is verbatim correct.
- Discovered in Nag Hammadi 1945; exact wording matches standard translations.
- Used here in Talarico's clip as played.
No errors — transcript nails it.
Original quote: “>> In the Gospel of Thomas, which was later omitted from the Bible by church officials, the Gospel of Thomas quotes Jesus is saying, "When you make the male and female one and the same, when the male is not male, when the female is not female, then you will enter the kingdom of God.”
Talarico implies Gospel of Thomas removed from Bible by church authorities — Solid (80/100)
At 2:14
Nailed the implication — Talarico did say 'omitted by church officials' like it was a shady council cover-up 👀✅😤
Why this score: Accurate representation of Talarico's clip. The played quote confirms he claimed it was 'omitted from the Bible by church officials.'
- This matches common non-canonical gospel narratives pushed by some progressives.
- Speaker correctly sets up the critique without exaggeration.
*Not 100% since it's interpretive, but spot-on.*
Original quote: “he goes to the church service and he wants to defend LGBTQ plus a AIG C3PO, all that stuff. And in defending it, he's going to he's going to quote the Gospel of Thomas. And because the Gospel of Thomas is not in your Bible, he adds in there that it should have that it was basically it should have…”
Gospel of Thomas was originally in Bible but removed by authorities — BS (10/100)
At 2:30
Called out Talarico's 'removed by authorities' like it was canon before the bad guys yanked it — straight conspiracy vibes with zero history behind it 💀🚩😭
Why this score: Pure fiction — Gospel of Thomas was never part of the Bible or early canon. Key facts:
- Discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi; composed mid-2nd century CE, post-apostolic era
- Excluded from canon due to Gnostic theology diverging from orthodox gospels (no narrative of crucifixion/resurrection)
- Early Church Fathers deemed it heretical; no evidence of prior inclusion or 'removal' by 'authorities'
Original quote: “[2:29] It's so crazy. [2:31] So, the Gospel of Thomas, which is not [2:35] shouldn't be in the Bible. It was [2:36] removed by authorities, he says. In [2:38] other words, it was it was uh the [2:40] implication is it was taken out of the [2:42] Bible, but it was originally part of it.”
Talarico says trans ideology reveals true gospel via Thomas — Opinion (50/100)
At 2:52
'White men removed it' into 'trans ideology = true gospel' — bro turned ancient text into a TED Talk on gender fluidity, wild pivot 👀💀🙄
Why this score: Subjective spin on Saying 114, where Jesus says he'll 'make Mary male' for spiritual unity — not modern trans endorsement. Points:
- Ancient context: spiritual transcendence of gender, reflecting patriarchal norms or primordial androgyny
- 'Trans ideology' is 21st-century concept; no equivalent in 2nd-century Gnosticism
- Mike's mockery fair as exaggeration, but Talarico's read is interpretive opinion, not fact
Original quote: “[2:47] probably white men in his opinion removed it. Um and then [2:50] you've got this claim about uh male and [2:53] female. You you'll finally understand [2:55] the gospel. You'll finally get the true [2:57] nature of the gospel when you accept [2:59] trans ideology.”
Gospel of Thomas not by Thomas, written later, opposes apostles — Verified (95/100)
At 3:22
Nailed it — 'not written by Thomas, written later, opposes apostles' is scholar consensus, I'm mad this apologist brought receipts 😤✅🔥
Why this score: Spot-on scholarship. Evidence aligns perfectly:
- Scholarly consensus: Mid-2nd century composition, pseudepigraphal (falsely claims Thomas authorship)
- Diverges from canonical gospels with Gnostic secret knowledge focus, lacking Jesus' passion narrative
- Opposes apostolic teaching on salvation by faith vs. gnosis
Original quote: “[3:20] is the Gospel of Thomas, not written by [3:25] Thomas, though it claims it was. It was [3:27] written later. It involves thoughts that [3:29] were clearly not from Jesus, clearly not [3:31] from the apostles, and that were [3:33] actually in opposition to the apostles”
Gospel of Thomas is Gnostic work about secret knowledge — Solid (85/100)
At 4:04
'Gnostic from Greek gnosis = secret knowledge' — etymology on point, and yeah it's got that vibe, solid drop without the fluff 📚✅😤
Why this score: Accurate classification. Core details check out:
- Gnosis (γνῶσις) literally 'knowledge,' central to Gnosticism's salvation via esoteric insight
- Thomas widely seen as proto-Gnostic or Gnostic text in Nag Hammadi corpus
- Emphasizes hidden sayings for self-knowledge, unlike canonical gospels
Original quote: “[4:02] we we consider this like, you know, a [4:04] Gnostic type work. Gnostic from the [4:08] Greek word nosis, which means knowledge, [4:10] and it has to do with like secret [4:11] knowledge.”
Gospel of Thomas written after canonical gospels were circulating — Solid (80/100)
At 4:30
Nailed the timeline — canonical Gospels were out by late 1st century, Thomas likely mid-2nd. Dropping that like it's casual knowledge 😤✅👀
Why this score: Accurate on dating and context. Gospel of Thomas's Greek fragments date to ~200 AD, post-canonical Gospels (Mark ~70 AD, John ~90-100 AD); Coptic version ~4th century but reflects earlier traditions.
- Nag Hammadi discovery confirms it's presented as 'secret sayings' after orthodox texts circulated.
- Scholarly consensus: not from 1st-century apostles, composed later.
Original quote: “That's what I see going on here withnosticism. And that's what I see going on in the Gospel of Thomas. So, I'll put on your screen again. And I'll show you an example of this. Um these are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke which Ditimus Judas Thomas wrote down. Again they're secret…”
Gospel of Thomas authors hid sayings to start a cult, attributing to Jesus — Opinion (50/100)
At 5:02
'Starting a cult' — bold swing from theology critic, love the energy but that's your spin on Gnostic vibes 🙄💀🔥
Why this score: Subjective interpretation of motives. Text claims secrecy from disciples, fitting Gnostic emphasis on esoteric knowledge over orthodox tradition.
- 'Cult' is pejorative; scholars see it as competing early Christian tradition, not deliberate fraud.
- Parallels other non-canonical texts attributing sayings to Jesus for authority.
Original quote: “the the person or people who wrote this work are trying to say they were kept secret even from the disciples even from the early Christians because ultimately they're starting a cult and they want to assign their teachings to Jesus.”
Saying 2: Seeker troubled, astonished, rules over the All (Jesus) — Verified (95/100)
At 5:39
Quotes Saying 2 dead-on — 'troubled... astonished... rule over the All' and Jesus as 'I am the all.' Direct hit, no notes 😤✅📜
Why this score: Precise quotation and interpretation. Matches Gospel of Thomas Saying 2 exactly: seeker finds, troubles, marvels, reigns over All; Saying 77 has Jesus as 'the All' (light in all).
- 'Rule over the All' implies mystical unity/divinization in Gnostic thought.
- Standard scholarly translation.
Original quote: “Um then it says in uh uh saying two Jesus said let him who seeks counsel seeks excuse me let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds when he finds he will become troubled when he becomes troubled he will be astonished and he will rule over the all which later is a reference to Jesus himself…”
Secret Gnostic teachings not fully in Thomas text; learned orally from teachers; cause trouble — Opinion (50/100)
At 6:10
Saying 77 pantheism quote spot-on, but 'troubled' = full creepy Gnostic lore only from mouth? Fair read on the progression 😬👀💭
Why this score: Plausible take on Gnostic pedagogy. Thomas has cryptic sayings (e.g., Saying 77: 'Split a piece of wood, I am there'); full gnosis often oral in Gnostic groups.
- 'Troubled' interpreted as shock at demiurge/material world illusions.
- Text standalone but fits broader secret-knowledge pattern.
Original quote: “and if you look under a rock there's me if you split a wood there's me So, why does it say he becomes troubled? Because once you find out what these secret teachings are of the Gnostics, which you won't actually get in this text, right? You would have had to get it from the teachers themselves.”
Saying 7 is obviously not a saying of Jesus — Opinion (50/100)
At 6:30
'Obviously not a saying of Jesus' — dude drops that like it's settled science when scholars still bicker over Thomas authenticity 👀😬
Why this score: Scholarly opinion, not fact. Gospel of Thomas Saying 7 is accurately quoted, but attribution to historical Jesus is debated — non-canonical, 2nd century CE composition per most experts. *His dismissal fits evangelical view, but 'obviously' oversells consensus.*
Original quote: “let's look at saying number seven. Uh Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes a man when consumed by a man and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes and the lion becomes a man." What does that mean? It's obviously not a saying of Jesus.”
Saying 7 promotes eating living things over dead; you become what you eat — Solid (80/100)
At 7:30
'You are what you eat' for lion-man swap — casual but hits the ascetic vibe spot on, even if 'cursory' admits it's a guess 📖😤✅
Why this score: Reasonable interpretation of esoteric text. Saying 7 often linked to ascetic themes subjugating animal nature or spiritual transformation via consumption. *Thomas has motifs against 'dead' things (e.g., Saying 11, 14); exchange of natures fits scholarly reads like overcoming passions.* 'Cursory' is honest — no definitive meaning.
Original quote: “Well, as as best as I can tell from like some some cursory examinations of the Gospel of Thomas, there's this obsession with with uh a focus, I should say, on not eating dead things or some problem with eating dead things versus eating living things. And if a lion consumes a man, the man's alive…”
Gospel of Thomas is Gnostic; needs secret teacher to interpret — OK (65/100)
At 8:25
Slaps 'Gnosticism' label then says it needs a guru decoder — half-right but Thomas ain't full myth-Gnostic 💀🤔
Why this score: Proto-Gnostic elements present, but debated. Thomas emphasizes gnosis (knowledge) for salvation, esoteric sayings needing interpretation — fits 'secret teacher' vibe. *However, lacks classic Gnostic myths (Demiurge, etc.); scholars call it 'Gnostic-leaning' or proto.* Accurate on opacity.
Original quote: “This is nasticism. Now you you obviously don't learn anything from the text. You have to have the teacher who then tries to tell you what it means. That's the nature of these types of writings.”
Gnosticism separates OT God (Demiurge) from NT God; historical development — Verified (90/100)
At 8:25
Nails the Demiurge-OT God split like a theology mic drop — I'm mad it's this accurate 😤✅🔥
Why this score: Spot-on core Gnostic tenet. Fully developed Gnosticism (2nd century+) identifies OT God as Demiurge, flawed creator vs. transcendent God of Jesus — direct contrast to orthodox monotheism. *Proto-Gnosticism emerging ~100-150 CE, peaked then faded by 4th-5th CE; Marcion (not 'Metorian') echoed this.* Historical timeline holds.
Original quote: “Uh it there's like what they call protonnosticism then later nosticism it was developing during this season. It was it was continuing to to grow and change and have more of a foothold and then it pretty much died off. But the basic idea ofnosticism when it's fairly welldeveloped is that you've got…”
Gnostics say OT God is bad guy called Demiurge — Verified (95/100)
At 8:30
Nailed the Demiurge basics like it's his day job — I'm mad this is spot-on, who let theology class slide into a roast sesh? 😤✅🔥
Why this score: Core Gnostic belief accurately described. Standard in Valentinian and Sethian systems.
- Demiurge (Yaldabaoth) is flawed/ignorant creator, equated to OT Yahweh.
- Material world seen as prison; true God is higher.
*"Metorian" likely flub for "metaphysical" or minor slip — doesn't derail.*
Original quote: “[8:24] Metorian heresies. But the idea is that [8:28] the the there's this separate being that [8:31] is the God of the Old Testament who [8:33] created the world, and he's actually not [8:34] a good guy, he's a bad guy. And he's [8:36] called the demi urge.”
Demiurge is distant emanation who created world — Solid (85/100)
At 9:00
Emanations chain to Demiurge like a bad family reunion — solid Gnostic cosmology, tho 'demi urge' pun is chef's kiss 😏✅👀
Why this score: Emanation doctrine correctly outlined. Matches texts like Apocryphon of John.
- Supreme God → aeons → lower beings → Demiurge creates matter.
- OT God ID standard in Gnosticism.
*Name etymology pun (demiourgos = craftsman) is playful but accurate.*
Original quote: “[8:40] Um, and you get really far out and that [9:02] guy, we call him the demiurge, this this [9:04] being. And the demiurge, he's not a good [9:07] guy. Even the name demi urge doesn't [9:09] sound very good. He created the world, [9:12] okay? And that's the Old Testament God.”
Some Gnostics: Jesus had no real body, wanted Judas betrayal — Verified (92/100)
At 9:30
Docetism + Judas hero arc dropped perfectly — hate that this checks out, now I gotta respect the homework 😡✅💀
Why this score: Spot-on Gnostic Christology & Judas Gospel.
- Docetism: Jesus' body illusory (common in Gnosticism, e.g., Acts of John).
- Gospel of Judas: Judas aids Jesus escaping flesh prison.
*Speaker notes 'some Gnostics' — precise, avoids overgeneralizing.*
Original quote: “[9:20] you get things like Jesus didn't really [9:22] have a real body. That's part of that's [9:24] part of some gnostics at least. Um he or [9:29] Jesus actually wanted Judas to get him [9:31] crucified. And Judas was the secret”
Gnostic salvation via secret knowledge, not simple faith — Verified (98/100)
At 10:12
Gnosis > faith gospel roast — this is textbook, why they gotta make heretics sound reasonable?? 😤✅🔥
Why this score: Defines gnosis ('knowledge') as salvation path — core tenet.
- Secret realizations escape material trap vs. orthodox faith.
- Contrasts 'simple known gospel' accurately.
*No notes, pure accuracy.*
Original quote: “[10:00] paths of salvation have to do with realizations and not just um [10:03] believing in the gospel the simple known [10:06] not secret gospel.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →