Wombat,..from a purely soulish perspective without a living spirit from God, the above statement appears to be very reasonable. This fails to grasp the significance of Scripture, though, for the believer.
Once one has an initial relationship with God through faith in Christ, the Holy Spirit regenerates the spirit in the believer. As long as the believer remains in fellowship with God, through faith in Christ, the believer may continue to study the Word of God, which in turn is made understood to the believer in his soul, and in his spirit by the work of the Holy Spirit. This is the process of continuing sanctification and the daily inbreathing of Bible Doctrine via the Holy Spirit furthers the believers development in Christ.
This isn't simply an exercise in comparative theology or a process in only gnosis, but rather the edification of gnosis in the soul by the Holy Spirit (not the believer) is used to develop epignosis in the soul and in the spirit of the believer.
This is not something that is used as the basis of sanctification in communication that is not from God.
Accordingly, although one might be intellectually intriqued in a selfish fashion by extrabiblical texts, unless the Word is revealed by God Himself, it doesn't edify the thinking processes or the spirit of man.
In this sense, such thinking is really no different than any other thinking to a man prior to his salvation by God. We are all born condemned in that we are first dead to God with respect to the spirit and require some method by which He might change us so we come alive in the spirit to have a relationship with Him. That initial salvation simply comes by Him when we have a simple faith in Him, and He is then free to regenerate our spirit.
With respect to good, human morality is impotent in the face of divine judgment. Only divine righteousness will merit reward in heaven. Many may confuse human good with fallen Christians who seek morality over a relationship with God through a continuing faith in Him.
Hope this helps to explain why the 'Gospel of Judas' is considered generally insignificant to most believers, and perhaps even heretical in its delivery.
Thank you, but I don't consider the Book of Judas, for example, to be insignifigant. You have to remember that the first centuries of Christianity very often were consumed in, and shaped by, such philosophical differences and debates.
It may be insignigant because, in the end, the Gnostics lost the argument with in the Church, but from an historical viewpoint it is huge. How many people actually ever heard of Gnosticism, what it was, it's biggest defenders, it's greatest foes, prior to the Da Vinci Code (pure crap) or the more recent news reports vis-a-vis the Book of Judas. It is a very important period and philosopohy in the early development of the Christian faith.
Now, it's one thing to strictly adhere to all aspects of Scripture as an act of faith, it's an altogether different animal to trace the path that faith and Scripture took to it's modern form, warts and all. You can't know where you're going until you know where you've been. I think that the biggest concern to organized Christianity in regards to the Book of Judas, etc, is not that these writings exist or but that the insights or ideas they might provide might cause some to "leave the reservation".