Jesus never made a "direct" quote of them, no. Nor did he ever refer to any of them as from God even IF he made allusion to them. No "thus sayeth the Lord". No "it is written". Hmmm...
The Septuagint is a Jewish Bible and they were in the Jewish canon. There were several different versions available for the various Jewish sects. The deuterocanonicals were not removed until the anti Christian Council of Jamnia which was convened in order to separate Judaism from Christianity.
The Jewish theologians NEVER accepted the Deuterocanonicals/Apocryphal books as in league with Divinely-inspired Scripture. I have given many links that prove this. I can't force you to read them, nor believe them, but you have not given comparable sources that prove what you assert. This "Council of Jamnia" that you term "anti-Christian" and which you claim was convened to separate Judaism from Christianity lacks historical references or any proof of what you claim. There are more than a few links that would help you to get an education about this council rather than being wholly dependent on what your leaders say. From the link http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-council-of-jamnia.htm we learn:
In 90 AD, the council of Jamnia was unimportant in determining the Jewish Canon.
It was not a major council like Nicea, but a small collection of rabbinic Jewish leaders.
They did not gather to determine the canon of the Old Testament, but rather limited their discussion to the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon.
Roman Catholics and Orthodox leaders misrepresent history when they make claims that the Canon of the Old Testament was not fixed until the council of Jamnia in 90 AD. They desperately don't want to be bound to following the Bible. Roman Catholics and Orthodox leaders feel that re-writing history to suggest the canon of the Jews was not fixed until after the Jewish system was abolished in 70 AD, is as absurd as it is wishful thinking. Think about it, only after God destroys the Jewish religion, do the Jews get a fixed canon.
There was clearly a fixed canon long before Jesus was born and when Jesus was tempted by the Bible three times, he did not reply, "human, man-made church tradition says Satan" Rather all three times Jesus replied, "It is written", (Matthew 4:1-4) referring to the Old Testament canon. In other words, the Devil didn't ask, "Written in what?" for everyone, including even the Devil knew what books were included in the Old Testament.
Additional information from http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia says:
The Council of Jamnia or Council of Yavne is a hypothetical 1st century council at which it is postulated the canon of the Hebrew Bible was defined. Some time before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai relocated to the city of Yavne/Jamnia, where he received permission from the Romans to found a school of Halakha (Jewish law).[1] His school became a major source for the later Mishna, which records the Tannaim, and a wellspring of Rabbinic Judaism. In 1871 Heinrich Graetz, drawing on Mishnaic and Talmudic sources, concluded that there must have been a late 1st century Council of Jamnia which had decided the Jewish canon. This became the prevailing scholarly consensus for much of the 20th century, but from the 1960s onwards it came increasingly into question. In particular, later scholars noted that none of Graetz's sources actually mentioned books that had been withdrawn from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions of the rabbis were about canonicity at all.
Heinrich Graetz introduced the notion in 1871; based on Mishnaic and Talmudic sources, he concluded that there must have been a Council of Jamnia which had decided the Jewish canon sometime in the late 1st century. This became the prevailing scholarly consensus for much of the 20th century. However, from the 1960s onwards, based on the work of Jack P. Lewis, Sidney Z. Leiman, and others, this view came increasingly into question. In particular, later scholars noted that none of the sources actually mentioned books that had been withdrawn from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions were about canonicity at all, asserting that they were actually dealing with other concerns entirely.
Jacob Neusner published books in 1987 and 1988 that argued that the notion of a biblical canon was not prominent in second-century Rabbinic Judaism or even later and instead that a notion of Torah was expanded to include the Mishnah, Tosefta, Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud and midrashim.[4]
Jack P. Lewis wrote in The Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. III, pp. 634-7 (New York 1992):
The concept of the Council of Jamnia is an hypothesis to explain the canonization of the Writings (the third division of the Hebrew Bible) resulting in the closing of the Hebrew canon. ... These ongoing debates suggest the paucity of evidence on which the hypothesis of the Council of Jamnia rests and raise the question whether it has not served its usefulness and should be relegated to the limbo of unestablished hypotheses. It should not be allowed to be considered a consensus established by mere repetition of assertion.
You really need to do a better job if you want to do more than just make unqualified assertions. That kind of "scholarship" doesn't do so well here.
http://ajewwithaview.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/scripture/
...The Septuagint refers to the Greek version of the Tanakh. But what many people don’t realise is that only the Torah part (five books of Moses) was actually translated by Jews.
All the rest was translated by non Jews. And if we compare, for example, Isaiah in the Tanakh, with Isaiah in the Septuagint, it is clear that the Septuagint does not reflect the original Hebrew at all.
Ultimately, the entire Septuagint was revised by the Church, and ceased to have any link to Judaism.
Here is a particularly interesting comment on the Septuagint, by Rabbi Tovia Singer, from the excellent website Outreach Judaism.
“… the Septuagint in our hands is not a Jewish document, but rather a Christian one. The original Septuagint, created 2,200 years ago by 72 Jewish translators, was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses alone.
It therefore did not contain prophetic Books of the Bible such as Isaiah. The Septuagint as we have it today, which includes the Prophets and Writings as well, is a product of the Church, not the Jewish people. In fact, the Septuagint remains the official Old Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the manuscripts that consist of our Septuagint today date to the third century C.E. The fact that additional books known as the Apocrypha, which are uniquely sacred to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church, are found in the Septuagint should raise a red flag to those inquiring into the Jewishness of the Septuagint.
Christians such as Origin and Lucian (third and fourth century C.E.) had an enormous impact on creating and shaping the Septuagint that missionaries use to advance their untenable arguments against Judaism. In essence, the present Septuagint is largely a post-second century Christian translation of the Bible, used zealously by the Church throughout the centuries as an indispensable apologetic instrument to defend and sustain Christological alterations of the Jewish scriptures.
The fact that the original Septuagint translated by rabbis more than 22 centuries ago was only of the Pentateuch and not of prophetic books of the Bible such as Isaiah is confirmed by countless sources including the ancient Letter of Aristeas, which is the earliest attestation to the existence of the Septuagint. The Talmud also states this explicitly in Tractate Megillah (9a), and Josephus as well affirms that the Septuagint was a translation only of the Law of Moses in his preface to Antiquities of the Jews. Moreover, Jerome, a church father and Bible translator who could hardly be construed as friendly to Judaism, affirms Josephus’ statement regarding the authorship of the Septuagint in his preface to The Book of Hebrew Questions. Likewise, the Anchor Bible Dictionary reports precisely this point in the opening sentence of its article on the Septuagint which states, “The word ‘Septuagint,’ (from Lat septuaginta = 70; hence the abbreviation LXX) derives from a story that 72 elders translated the Pentateuch into Greek; the term therefore applied originally only to those five books.”
In fact, Dr. F.F. Bruce, the preeminent professor of Biblical exegesis, keenly points out that, strictly speaking, the Septuagint deals only with the Pentateuch and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes:
“The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles.”...
Netheir is Ezra or Nehemiah or several others, for that matter. They are not mentioned at all in the entire NT. Have you redacted them from your Bible yet?