With careful interpretation, most of the sayings have profound meaning. I enjoyed reading this commentary:
Amazon.com: The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated & Explained (Skylight Illuminations,) (9781893361454): Stevan L. Davies, Andrew Harvey: Books
While Thomas should by no means replace the canonical Gospels, it can be read alongside them.
I don't think it can. Not that I'm saying it shouldn't be read, but Thomas by no means stands on the same footing as the Four Gospels which the Church has universally agreed upon for two thousand years.
If I may make an observation, I've noticed that you spend a lot of time attempting to deconstruct Christianity; I don't mean dismantle, just deconstruct. I wholly get investigating the depth and breadth of the Christian Tradition, looking into the history and theological developments that have happened over the last two thousand years.
I get it because I love studying Church History, I love studying theology. I enjoy seeing how the two have gone hand-in-hand. I consider it a worthwhile exercise because I believe it strengthens faith.
What I want to caution, however, isn't against asking questions--those are good, questions not only should be asked, they must be asked. Doubt and faith are not mortal enemies, the two compliment each other by inviting us to a more exciting and robust life of faith, away from spoon-fed easy-ism. What I want to caution is attempting to reconstruct Christianity. Assuming, for example, that a book isn't found in the Canon because the Church was "afraid" or "ignorant" or trying to garner power (or any combination thereof) whilst also thinking one can, on their own, improve upon what has been handed down, generation to generation, for centuries is a great way to create a Christianity that looks surprisingly just like how you want it to look.
Now, on the one hand, it's impossible not to have a Christianity that in some ways reflect ourselves, precisely because we are talking about things we believe. I believe in the Trinity, therefore the Christianity I practice is Trinitarian; and furthermore Trinitarianism saturates and filters downward through the rest of my faith and how I think. That is, I think, unavoidable; it's just part of being a faulty, fallible, frail human being. That is why we need the Church; not so we can be told what to believe and how to think, but so that we can see that we are not islands of faith, but organic members of a living, dynamic community of faith engaging in very large, overarching conversations about how to live out our common faith in the world.
So if one is going to make a statement such as that the Gospel of Thomas can be read alongside the Synoptics and John, one is wading very nearly in waters of spiritual isolationism.
Note, I am not saying that the Gospel of Thomas can't be spiritually fulfilling. It very well might be for you, and if so, then awesome. But there is a reason why there are Four Gospels, not three or five or sixteen; not because non-Canonical or unorthodox texts are innately or inherently "evil" but because they do not represent the historic witness of the Christian community. It would, probably, have been far easier to have just one Gospel, perhaps Luke or John, or a harmony such as the Diatessaron; we wouldn't have to wrestle with the complexities, inconsistencies and other difficulties with having four distinct gospel texts and two very different evangelical traditions (Synoptics and John). To that end, I think it's relevant that there are four, because in spite of the inherent difficulty of attempting to reconcile different parts of the texts, these four are still what Christians have, very nearly universally since incredibly early on, agreed upon as bearing witness of the apostolic faith handed down of the Jesus in whom the Church commits itself in faith for its salvation and hope.
Just my two friendly cents here.
-CryptoLutheran