“It is understood by may that Origen or likely Esebius was the actual author of your supposed Apocrypha long after the New Testament was written and inserted words and phrases that copied the New Testament...”
You’re completely wrong. We know this because the Dead Sea Scrools predate Origen and Eusebius and they contain at least three Deuterocanonical books that I know of:
“In 1947 cashes of ancient manuscripts were discovered in 11 caves along the cliffs of the northern end of the Dead Sea. This collection of what will probably prove to be 1,000 volumes of text when they are finally all transcribed, are known as The Dead Sea Scrolls [DSS]. Discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which included all books in part or whole copies of the Old Testament books, commentaries on Sacred Scripture, and secular documents relating to the community located near the caves, there were also Greek Septuagint translations which included copies of the books of the Old Testament included in Catholic Bibles today. Several copies of the Septuagint found among the Dead Sea Scrolls on leather scrolls date from the 2nd century BC to the early 1st century AD, while other earlier copies were found on fragments of papyri which date to the 2nd or early 3rd century BC. The seven deuterocanonical books which are included in Catholic Bibles but which are missing from Jewish and Protestant Bibles are included among the scrolls discovered [The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, James VanderKam and Peter Flint, Harper-San Francisco, 2002, page 97]. These precious scrolls were hidden in caves near a settlement close to the Dead Sea which scholars and archaeologists refer to as “Qumran”. The settlement was abandoned circa 68AD during second year of the First Jewish Revolt against the Roman Empire, which began in 66AD [see endnote # 2]. With the discovery of the DSS and the copies of the deuterocanonical texts found among them, a number of prominent Protestant biblical scholars have conceded that these texts should no longer be excluded from the Protestant and Jewish Old Testament canons. Among this minority of evangelical Protestant scholars who have called for a reassessment of the place of these books in the canon is Hartmut Gese, who boldly asserts the deuterocanonical texts are essential to understanding the New Testament documents: “One simply cannot, to name only one example, understand John 1 without Sir [Ecclesiasticus] 24.” [ Alttestamentliche Studien, H. Gese (Tübingcn, 1991) p. 27, quoted by Martin Hengel in The Septuagint as Christian Scripture. Its Prehistory and the Problem of its Canon, transl. Mark E. Biddle (Edinburgh & New York: T &T Clark, 2002), page 110 and Henri Blocher, “Helpful or Harmful? The Apocrypha and Evangelical Theology,” European Journal of Theology 13.2 (2004): 81-90].” http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/SEPTUAGINT_VS_JAMAIAN_OLD_T.htm
There are other religious themed writings among those discovered thus far that are not Jewish OT texts, or are "Deuteronanical books" either, whom no religious sect persisting to this day hold as being capital S "canonical" Scripture.
The argument promoted at the page you supplied link to, regarding the Qumran scrolls aspect (alone), is essentially; the Jews who were of the Sanhedrin, and of the Temple, did not rightly know what it was they considered as being their own Holy Writ (or that the Hebrew canon was not "officially closed" etc., until the badly dated Jamnia "conference" ---which was not like a Church Council where religious leaders got together to decide what their 'canon' of Scripture was, but instead was work to rebuild the schools of religious instruction which had existed prior to the overthrow of Jerusalem and the then further scattering of Jewish peoples hither and yon among the civilize world of the survivors of that catastrophe).
But based largely upon the discoveries in the desert near the Dead Sea, we should all now go with whatever [ahem] OT 'canon' of whichever religious persons initially hid the manuscripts, and that 'canon' be guessed at due to remains of particular writings having been found in the area. Did I mention there were other religious writings, apparently held in high esteem by those who hid them, which are not Jewish OT, and not so-called Dueterocanonical either? The fact is it is not exactly clear (as far as I know) what the person (or persons, some manuscripts could have arrived there, hidden in different place than other writings at some later date) themselves accepted as comprising their own religious tradition --of what was to be considered their own Holy Writ, and what would be lesser writings, not considered on par with "Scripture", though still important to them as religious instructions, and commentary.