No, not originals, while as said, merely being found in the company of some writings of Scripture does not make such of that class, lest many other writings would be also.
"After the fact OG LLXX? That's just shape shifting for deflective rabbit holing no- time to go down... Stick with the OG original, you can't go wrong."
Enough with the sophistry, as you must know that there is no original LXX, and being Old Greek does not make it original, while rather than "shape shifting for deflective rabbit holing," the size and contents of the 1st c. LXX is the pertinent issue, and seeing as you have no LXX copy which contains all the Deutros for hundreds of years, or early ones that agree with each other regarding the content, and some add more, then it is you who is engaging in shape shifting.
And contrary to the premise of a 1st c. larger LXX, Although the claim that the Apocrypha were once in the Palestinian canon breaks down completely, as soon as the real Palestinian evidence is examined, one must still consider the possibility that the Hellenistic canon was wider than the Palestinian, and so was able to embrace them. This, of course, is the Old theory Of the Alexandrian canon, current since the eighteenth century.176...
The original grounds for the Alexandrian canon hypothesis were the comprehensive manuscripts of the Septuagint. The Septuagint is a pre-Christian Jewish translation, and the larger manuscripts of it include various of the Apocrypha. Grabe's edition of the Septuagint, where the theory was first propounded, was based upon the fifth- century Codex Alexandrinus.
However, as we now know, manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era," and since, in the second century C.E., the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint in favour of revisions or translations more usable in their controversy with the church (notably Aquila's translation), there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century, are all of Christian origin. (The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church: and its Background in Early Judaism by Roger T. Beckwith | Nov 1, 2008, p. 382)
What is there in the apocrypha that uniquely supports Christian faith anyway?
"Actually agree"
Meaning the premise that Jews nuked the Deuteros in seeking to rob Christians from support (and Luther to keep Catholics from the same) is overall lacking in support.
", though Macabbees for me of course.. but its not that impacting- I agree with you - but shouldn't we look then at all scripture unsupportive of Christianity then? No."
But souls who died due to manifest idolatry, (2 Macabbees 12) with no warrant for surmising they repentant at the last, and with offering being made for them in the interest of them seeing the resurrection (of the just) does not teach RC Purgatory, and at face value actually teaches contrary to it.
And indeed "remember the caves" in which it was shown that merely being found in the company of some writings of Scripture does not make such of that class, lest many other writings would be also.
And the class written after 70AD exposes the demonic fraud... Every Christian has to believe this... choose the right side.
That is an assertion, not an argument.
Enough for today.