Tobit is part of the Septuagint used by Jesus and his Apostles.
Besides, even IF it was, this passage doesn't ever say believers should pray to angels.
The angels in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth. "An angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3–4).
Jesus himself warned us not to offend small children, because their guardian angels have guaranteed intercessory access to the Father: "See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 18:10).
Tobit didn't know Raphael was an angel when he went with Tobit's son Tobias.
Your point?
Excuse me, but reliance upon textual indications of "Jesus and his Apostles" having been aware of and/or even had quoted from Greek language versions of passages from the OT -- does not equate to the book of Tobias or Tobit as that is known to have been regarded as canonical by those whom you mention.
The evidence is strongly the other-way-around, meaning that --- they likely knew of Tobit and other written works which eventually made their way into the collection of literature known as Septuagint -- yet did not use those works themselves, either at all (depending upon which book of OT Apocrypha/deutercanon) and certainly not quoting from ANY of them as they did cite elsewhere from Scripture.
It is not well known which books of whqt is now referred to as dueterocanon, at the time of Christ, were or were not present among scrolls of the the remainder of that which makes of Greek Septuagint.
Even if the copies of book of Tobit be somewhere among the scrolls of expatriate Jews (such as those living in Alexandria), first --- to result in that presence actually indicate that work be rightfully Hebrew religious canon, then one must show that the presence alone of that work (and others) is equal to canonicity, and
THEN ---- show that those same diaspora Jews did not hold mistaken views as to what rightfully composed their canon, and what didn't.
Did not the earliest Christians, have among themselves for a time, written works that were erroneously regarded by themselves as being canonical? That did not make those books into being real and actual 'holy writ', now did it? A writing is either infallible inspired from above -- or it is not. I do not believe that is like a light switch or water spigot -- that once is turned on, lit up, or opened to flow -- can ever properly then be undone, shut off, turned off, made not inspired, unless it was never sufficiently inspired -- in the first place.
Perhaps yet another question here should be also asked -- should we consider the written works which we accept as canonical to be accurately representative as Word of God? Or is some of it merely helpful literature?
Among the Jews, from their own history, during their own Exodus from Egypt --- they were instructed through their prophets to write the Law as given to them ---upon their own hearts, as even the very word of God to them.
As it is, even "Catholic" sources cannot establish that Jesus and his Apostles cited any of the Apocryphal writings as Scripture, perhaps most particularly in narrow regard to Tobit, being as that book itself is being here referred to by yourself ---while citing it also as having been regarded as Scripture to Christ and the Apostles themselves specifically -- when none of the above quoted from that one, at all.
Or else, you could show me where they did so?
Even http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html appears to have ceased from their previous claims that Christ and the Apostles quoted from Apocrypha/dueterocanon at all. Hallelujah. Thank God for small miracles. Someone must have raked John Salza over the coals real good and proper for the "listing" he used to publish, to have now been [cough-cough] adjusted. bwaahahhaa! too funny! I'm lovin' it.
Can you prove your contentions, other than a brief hand-waving towards "Septuagint"?
After all this time on this forum, yourself having begun countless HUNDREDS of threads which touched upon and have at times delved moderately deep into issues as per these disputed writings of which Tobit is a part ---- do you still not know that simple waving towards deuterocanon, does_not_work?
The book of Tobit itself has some textual problems --internal errors as it were, mistaken statements shown to have confused identities.
As for deuterocanonical issues, there is the significant problem of challenge of Philo (25 BC- 50 AD) that man an erudite Jew from Alexandria having written of and quoted extensively from most all of the rest of OT Scripture --- but --- having not done so in regards to the disputed writings now known as duetercanon.
Then, there is the witness of Josephus from 75 AD, who's own numbering of "books" which were considered by the Jews as canon --- once the numbering is seen in light of how Jews of that age arranged things --- does not include the OT Apocrypha.
Can one somehow squeeze past those witnesses well enough to now say that Jesus and the Apostles regard for these disputed works as being what they themselves viewed as being Scripture? --
Here, in your own citing of Jesus and the Apostles (thank you for that, in this context) underlines how important this issue can be.
There are various indications that Christians, by Melito of Sardis's era (180 AD) had ongoing disputes among themselves as to what should have been or was OT canon, is yet more reason to reasonably conclude that those disputed writings were not among Hebrew OT canon, AND ALSO--- was not well enough established by earliest Christian traditions TO THE CONTRARY, with the Christians of that age having either; become confused by inclusion of books such as Tobit among some diaspora Jews within collections of Greek texts, or lack of clear expression from these same Greek speaking Jews for well enough expressing differentiation in their own considerations towards books such as Tobit--- compared to Torah, the Prophets, and the other Writings otherwise known to be accepted by themselves as Scripture, which had helped cause the confusion.
That apparent confusion has been here of late --blamed on the Jews of that age-- as IF they would actually remove books from their own canon sometime near to 90 AD (council of Jamnia) ---just to spite Christians.
Imagine that. Jews --- those whom would know best as to what was properly canonical to themselves and what was not --- tearing out books of their own Bible, as it were? That is unthinkable. That would have raised such a tumult among them, I'd say that anyone who would thinks otherwise does not know or understand religious Jews -- much at all.
The re-instituting in 90 AD of Jewish religious schools (in what is now Israel) of which there is not much dispute among scholars to have occurred (even as there IS dispute as to whether it was "a Council") bears witness as to what they regarded as canon --- and that agrees with Josephus's description.
Flavius Josephus was born in the year 37 AD. Among his own writings which include details his own life, he mentions that hen 19 years of age he was put under the tutelage of a religious teacher, who lived alone in the desert, and was of the Pharisee sect.
37, plus 19 equals 54. Which suggests that somewhere near the year 54 AD, at the latest, Josephus first learned of the contents of 'canon' of religious writings, of the Jews. At least -- those Jews foremost in recognized religious authority.
But now, today...LOL...the same people who pound the tables around here while speaking of "Tradition" think they can by their own later arising Traditions, overthrow the contents of that earlier Hebrew tradition as to what made up the collection of writings considered sanctified and 'holy'-- enough to put writings into the mouths of Jesus Christ himself and his Apostles also, that which was not recognized as Scripture by the very individuals whom during time of Christ -- considered themselves to then occupy the 'seat of Moses'???
I can't help it man...I've got to take a break, this is busting me up...I'm sitting here LMAO -- no kidding! You guys are too much. Pull the other leg!
False.