> “Through study of the new testament and the manuscripts included in the King James I have found no extra texts which I deem need to be included or text included which I would exclude.
The compilation is sufficiently and irreducably complex.”

Then this is something we agree on in regards to which books are in the canon.

> “Because I believe it happened (for multiple reasons not all relevant to this discussion) based on the fact that I hold Jesus in such esteem that I believe he would not qoute something if he did not value the account of it. There is text in the old testament that I would dispute more ardently than I would the new.”

According to this you also believe the Bible because of God. So we agree there too.

> “So, just because I believe the new Testament is canonised by men. Does not mean that I believe a manuscript should be added or removed. That is an assumption on your part.”

So far I did not assume anything IMHO. My question would be here, since you say you believe it was canonized by men, how do you know it is the correct canon? How do you know that Revelations belongs into the Bible? Or that Gospel of Barnabas doesn’t?

> ”Paul (1st witness) wrote that we should test all and retain that which is good. This supposes that he does not restrict lessons and edification to scripture alone but allows us to draw knowledge and inspiration from information extant to the "canon”.”

Paul says that the scripture is sufficient to make us perfect workers of God. Which means we don’t need anything else. Also whenever he was challenged on something Jesus always said “have you not READ?” So he was using scriptures as his authority. Which sets a good example for us and protects us from error. We should not add to the scripture but test everything against the scripture.

> “Joshua and Samuel (2nd & 3rd witnesses)
both state. "Is it not written in the book of Jasher?"

If God is indeed the author of Joshua and Samuel (like you claim) then why would He have referenced a book that no scholar on earth including myself would consider anything more but a compilation of stories which have value only in marginal and fringe research of history?

Would you value it if God referenced it as a source to verify events? Of course you must.
By nature of your claim you might just as well include the book of the upright into your supposed canon.”

That’s a wrong assumption. Just because it is mentioned doesn’t mean it should be included in the canon. Paul mentions also Greek writers and epistles we don’t have. They are not part of the canon.

“I do not fear reading it as I have. I do not fear drawing a valuable allegory or conclusion from it as I have. Most of what is recorded in it is utterly useless information.”

Here we disagree profoundly. So you are saying Bible is useless information? What do you mean by that? Because the way I see the Bible is the only place I can learn about God and his will. Reliably.