>>512278582
>but they are all schismatics.
By whose authoritative standards? Yours?

By definition, not everyone can be a schismatic. Someone has to be the one the others are schismatizing from.

>Not only they banned many apocrypha while trying to assemble christian canon
Which is wrong for the reason that...?

>they are all equally deficient when trying to prove why they're the only true christians
The Apostolic Church (which the Orthodox and the Catholic churches make up) has direct lines of apostolic succession spanning down to the first apostles, and their faith is verifiably the same as the faith the first Christians wrote about. The Apostolic Church does not claim to be the only true Christians, but to possess the fullness of truth, from which those outside the church have deviated to one extent or another.

>- all have the books and holy men to boast about
Yes, in the end God sanctifies who he wills. The Church offers a normative way to salvation that was given to us by God, but God is not obliged to limit his work to this path.
>- all cling to their minor semantical differences
Sometimes true, yet in many cases they are more than semantics, concerning the exact nature of things such as eucharist and salvation or the definition of faith.
- all fail to reproduce verifiable miracles
Reproduce? Yes, God is not an element of nature you can subject to scientific inquiry. But produce without the 're'? The Church history is literally brimming with miracles which are witnessed even to this day.
- all fail to show that their folk became closer to god or free from sin
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the lives of the saints.