I can't help but wonder, if these Councils were all supposed to have "settled" the question of the Old Testament canon, then why was there a need for all the rest after the first one at the Synod of Rome? Why did the council at Trent then decide it needed to make ANOTHER "infallible" pronouncement on the canon if it was already a settled question and why was there STILL far from unanimous consent on what they did decide to do? Sure seems like the "propaganda" is on the side of those who insist it was a settled question in 382 A.D.
As said, if it was binding then you had such a lax attitude toward dissent that one who dissented from the canon Trent would affirm was yet considered as “Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority,... a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly.”
Or in fact the canon was not yet indisputable, and Luther was not a maverick in listing some books as separate from Scripture proper, nor was he a pope whom all must follow. But such objective consideration would hinder an angry lynching.
For the simple reason that just as you are doubting various books of the Bible, in the 1500s the various reformations (first, second, third etc) led to wholescale doubts of the entire canon by various groups including unitarians, etc.
But that was for Protestants -- for varying groups, Christian and non-Christian such as yours, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, etc. that's now your prerogative to toss out as many books as you want to
ONLY TRUTH has been settled from the beginning of time - TRUTH never changes - Always was and Always will be. There is ONLY ONE Truth.
Counterfeit is always adding, forever changing. Deception begets deception.