“As it is written, man does not live by Bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out from the mouth of God!”
Except for what came from the mouth of God, was quoted by His Son Jesus Christ, and is in Maccabees, Baruch, Sirach, Wisdom, and so on, right? So, just like Christ in His incarnate human form said, "my flesh" and "my blood" because He was too stupid to say what He meant, He also quoted from books He shouldn't have?
Christ and the Apostles never once mention that there is anything in error or improper about the collection of works contained in the Septuagint. Jesus Christ, the Word Incarnate, God from God, directly quoted from books of the Old Testament Luther threw out. Scripture Alone promoters ignore the fact that Christ Himself quoted from what Luther threw out, and by doing so are asserting that Luther knew far more about The Word of God than did Jesus Christ Himself. That's a pretty clear denial of the deity of Christ whether the folks doing it realize they're denying the deity of Christ or not.
It's clear that while Scripture Alone promoters like to pretend they only rely on Scripture and nothing else, they don't even accept all of the Scripture that Jesus Christ the Son of God very clearly did accept, so the promoters of the doctrine don't even believe in 'Scripture Alone' themselves. People who are trotting along behind Eve and Luther because they think the Scripture Alone doctrine is valid had better think again and work out their Salvation with fear and trembling rather going along to get along.
Scripture Alone is just a convenient smokescreen, otherwise those who claim they rely only on the Scriptures would have the same Old Testament the Catholic Church has.
At best those who claim to rely on Scripture Alone really mean "Subset I Like Alone", and more often than not actually believe that they can add to, subtract from, butcher, and ignore, Scriptures they don't like as long as they divert attention from their butchery by laying down the smokescreen of 'Scripture Alone'.
have a nice day
You are intertwining two arguments here...Sola Scriptura and the legitimacy of the so called Apocrypha books. The Apocryphal books arguement is a separate subject from Sola Scriptura. I will argue that should the earlier church fathers had fully decided by fasting and faith, under the guidance of the Spirit(there was not unanimous acceptance of the Apocrypha, even in the 4th century AD) that the books should have been considered fully legitimate, their full acceptance by present and future “departments” of the Faith would not alter the pro Sola Scriptura argument, rather it strengthens it.
Indeed, there is much in the Apocrypha books that would refute Catholic magisterial tradition...so perhaps it isn't wise to refer to them as part of an apologetic concerning an anti sola scriptoral position.