LDS If a universal apostasy really happened?

[dzheremi]

Really, any of them? Because I've read Eusebius (4th century; generally regarded as the first historian of the Church), Sozomen (5th century), Zacharias Rhetor (5th century), Agathangelos (5th century), Yeshighe (5th century), Kourian (5th century), John of Ephesus (6th century), Ps.-Dionysius of Tel Mahre (8th century), Severus El Ashmunein (10th century), etc., as well as modern historians like Maged S.A. Mikhail, Tim Vivian, Jaroslav Pelikan, Sidney Griffith, Iris Habib El Masri, HH Ignatius Yacoub III, Matti Moosa, Met. Timothy Ware, Fr. John McGuckin, Sebastian Brock, and many others, and none of these present the history of the Christian Church anywhere ever in the manner that you do, Peter. Your depiction and understanding of events is quite simply erroneous, and clearly influenced more by your dedication to the Mormon alternate history narrative than anything that is found in any historical source.

 

[Peter1000]

When will be the great apostasy???

2 Thessalonians 2:1-10 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

2 Brothers and sisters, we have something to say about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. We want to talk to you about that time when we will meet together with him. 2 Don’t let yourselves be easily upset or worried if you hear that the day of the Lord has already come. Someone might say that this idea came from us—in something the Spirit told us, or in something we said, or in a letter we wrote. 3 Don’t be fooled by anything they might say. That day of the Lord will not come until the turning away from God happens. And that day will not come until the Man of Evil appears, the one who belongs to hell.[a] 4 He will stand against and put himself above everything that people worship or think is worthy of worship. He will even go into God’s Temple and sit there, claiming that he is God.

5 I told you before that all these things would happen. Remember? 6 And you know what is stopping that Man of Evil now. He is being stopped now so that he will appear at the right time. 7 The secret power of evil is already working in the world now. But there is one who is stopping that secret power of evil. And he will continue to stop it until he is taken out of the way. 8 Then that Man of Evil will appear. But the Lord Jesus will kill him with the breath that comes from his mouth. The Lord will come in a way that everyone will see, and that will be the end of the Man of Evil.

9 When that Man of Evil comes, it will be the work of Satan. He will come with great power, and he will do all kinds of false miracles, signs, and wonders. 10 The Man of Evil will use every kind of evil to fool those who are lost. They are lost because they refused to love the truth and be saved.

2 Timothy 3:1-9 ESV
But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people

1 Timothy 4:1-3 ESV
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

2 Thessalonians is a great scripture that Paul was trying to tell the people that there was going to be a falling away (apostasy) soon. This is how we analyze this scripture:

Paul tells us that the 2nd coming can not take place until there is a falling away (apostasy) first.

He tells us that the mystery of this iniquity (falling away/apostasy) was already working or taking place now.

But this apostasy is being checked to a certain extent by some force or some person, we believe it is the living apostles that are still alive from the 12, John and Paul especially.

But once these men are taken out of the way, satan would be unbound until Jesus will eventually destroy him, probably at his 2nd coming.

So the text is talking about the apostasy taking place in the 2nd century all the way thru to the latter days when the 2nd coming takes place, which many in that day thought was imminent, not 2000 year in the future.

 

[Peter1000]

Really, any of them? Because I've read Eusebius (4th century; generally regarded as the first historian of the Church), Sozomen (5th century), Zacharias Rhetor (5th century), Agathangelos (5th century), Yeshighe (5th century), Kourian (5th century), John of Ephesus (6th century), Ps.-Dionysius of Tel Mahre (8th century), Severus El Ashmunein (10th century), etc., as well as modern historians like Maged S.A. Mikhail, Tim Vivian, Jaroslav Pelikan, Sidney Griffith, Iris Habib El Masri, HH Ignatius Yacoub III, Matti Moosa, Met. Timothy Ware, Fr. John McGuckin, Sebastian Brock, and many others, and none of these present the history of the Christian Church anywhere ever in the manner that you do, Peter. Your depiction and understanding of events is quite simply erroneous, and clearly influenced more by your dedication to the Mormon alternate history narrative than anything that is found in any historical source.

Do any of them describe the state of the church like Martin Luther does?

 

[dzheremi]

Do any of them describe the state of the church like Martin Luther does?

No, because they were not Roman Catholics as Martin Luther was. Protestantism began as a response to local circumstances in the Western Church, and hence was not really a factor outside of Western Europe until a few centuries after Luther. If you are only reading Western authors who only deal with Western history, then you aren't really reading comprehensive histories, as you claim. The authors I listed range from modern Americans of Protestant background (Pelikan was a Lutheran pastor for most of his life before converting to Eastern Orthodoxy in 1998, and only departed in 2006) to ancient Palestinian Greeks (Eusebius, Sozomen) and medieval Syrian and Egyptian monks and bishops (Ps.-Dionysius of Tel Mahre, HG Severus El Ashmunein).

 

[ViaCrucis]

Do any of them describe the state of the church like Martin Luther does?

I wasn't aware that Dr. Luther wrote a comprehensive history of the Christian Church. What's it called?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[eleos1954]

From the picture, I think you can see that jot and tittle relates to Hebrew, not Greek nor any other Biblical languages. Some of OT is is not in Hebrew and would be saved because they are part of the OT.

Jewish people would not allow their scriptures to be completely destroyed, but would hide some from the mobs.

If there was an universal Christian Apostasy, then they would destroy specifically Christian documents.

The NT can be recovered in the writings of the church fathers, thus their works would be destroyed by those who left the church. An universal apostasy is not simply a revised Christianity. But, complete rejection of Christianity. They would hate the NT and destroy it.

In the absence of the Church and Christian Writings, those who want to form their secular brand of Christianity that would be compatible with religions of their day would have to make up oral traditions.

Jesus promise in that verse I quoted relates only to the OT or Jewish Bible. It does not relate to the NT.

Paul's comments to Timothy concerning the Scriptures in context also refers to the OT or Jewish Bible alone since the NT had not been formed yet.

If you think about it why even bother creating another form of Christianity if you have left the Lord or turned your back on him.

To fit in, one would do their own thing or make up what they want to believe that conforms to the world around them.

Apostasy is the rejection of Christ and that has been going on for a long long time and is going to get worse as time goes on ... it will continue until Jesus returns.

 

[Peter1000]

I wasn't aware that Dr. Luther wrote a comprehensive history of the Christian Church. What's it called?

-CryptoLutheran

Dr. Luther was a living testimony of the utter corruption of the most powerful Christian church that existed in the world in the 16th century. It is a snapshot of time that goes all the way back to the dark ages. The leadership of that church were so wicked that they finally pushed millions of people to leave their church of centuries and create their own churches.

I can see not a lot of difference between the popes & cardinals of the Catholic church and the Patriarchs and his assistants from the other churches of the Pentarchy.

 

[Peter1000]

No, because they were not Roman Catholics as Martin Luther was. Protestantism began as a response to local circumstances in the Western Church, and hence was not really a factor outside of Western Europe until a few centuries after Luther. If you are only reading Western authors who only deal with Western history, then you aren't really reading comprehensive histories, as you claim. The authors I listed range from modern Americans of Protestant background (Pelikan was a Lutheran pastor for most of his life before converting to Eastern Orthodoxy in 1998, and only departed in 2006) to ancient Palestinian Greeks (Eusebius, Sozomen) and medieval Syrian and Egyptian monks and bishops (Ps.-Dionysius of Tel Mahre, HG Severus El Ashmunein).

If they don't, they are whitewashing the corruption of the leadership of the Christian churches. Today it is a little different. The church leaders don't get to get away with murder because the technology is too available and penetrating. It keeps people in line and so today we have pretty good leadership in the churches, but it has not always been so especially from about 300-1900ad.

 

[dzheremi]

Alright, well...it sounds like you're stuck on the Mormon alternate history train and refuse to get off for anything. I don't really see what the point of reading any Church history is if you're just going to evaluate it according to Mormonism anyway, and claim that since it doesn't back up your baseless claims it is "whitewashing corruption". There are no Mormon historians on the early Christian Church, so I guess you're stuck misinterpreting and rejecting the very things you're now telling people to read (without telling us what actual works you are talking about when you say the evidence for your claims is in any comprehensive book on church history). That's really odd and unconvincing, but have fun playing church historian. You have no credibility whatsoever and are definitely in Mormon Dan Brown territory, but I suppose expecting anything else was wishful thinking.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Apostasy is the rejection of Christ and that has been going on for a long long time and is going to get worse as time goes on ... it will continue until Jesus returns.

According to the Apostle Paul the Great Apostasy is just before the return of Our Lord, not in the past.

Jewish people would not allow their scriptures to be completely destroyed, but would hide some from the mobs.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

2 Thessalonians is a great scripture that Paul was trying to tell the people that there was going to be a falling away (apostasy) soon. This is how we analyze this scripture:

Paul tells us that the 2nd coming can not take place until there is a falling away (apostasy) first.

He tells us that the mystery of this iniquity (falling away/apostasy) was already working or taking place now.

But this apostasy is being checked to a certain extent by some force or some person, we believe it is the living apostles that are still alive from the 12, John and Paul especially.

But once these men are taken out of the way, satan would be unbound until Jesus will eventually destroy him, probably at his 2nd coming.

So the text is talking about the apostasy taking place in the 2nd century all the way thru to the latter days when the 2nd coming takes place, which many in that day thought was imminent, not 2000 year in the future.

"He will even go into God’s Temple and sit there, claiming that he is God."

The Antichrist is still future, thus so is the Great Apostasy friend.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

The teaching of the Holy Apostles, as recorded in the book known as “The Didache” (cir.first/second Century), is summarized similarly:

For in the last days false prophets and seducers will increase…and then the deceiver of the world will appear as though he were the Son of God, and he shall do signs and wonders and the earth shall be delivered into his hands; and he will do immoralities which have never been done since the age began. Then shall the race of men will come into the fire of proving trial… (Didache 16:3,4,5)

...

He also wrote the classic Orthodox catechism, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, which has been the main catechism of the Church for centuries. In Chapter 26 of Book 4 of this Exposition St. John summarizes the early Church’s teaching on the Antichrist:
It should be known that the Antichrist is bound to come. First, therefore, it is necessary that the Gospel should be preached among all nations (1): And then shall that wicked one be revealed, even him whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders (2), with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, whom the Lord shall consume with the word of His mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming (3). The devil himself (4), therefore does not become man in the way that the Lord was made man. God forbid! but he [the Antichrist] becomes man as the offspring of fornication and receiveth all the energy of Satan. For God, foreknowing the strangeness of the choice that he would make, allows the devil to take up his abode in him (5)

He [the Antichrist] is, therefore, as we said, the offspring of fornication and is nurtured in secret, and on a sudden he rises up and rebels and assumes rule. And in the beginning of his rule, or rather tyranny, he assumes the role of sanctity (6). But when he becomes master he persecutes the Church of God and displays all his wickedness. But he will come with signs and lying wonders (7), fictitious and not real, and he will deceive and lead away from the living God those whose mind rests on an unsound and unstable foundation, so that even the elect shall, if it be possible, be made to stumble (8).

...

St. Ephraim (fourth century) states that the Antichrist will come

in such a manner as to deceive all. He will appear humble, meek, a hater (as he will say himself) of unrighteousness, shunning idols, showing a preference to piety, good, a lover of the poor, beautiful to the extreme, steadfast, affable to all and especially esteeming the Jewish people because the Jews will await his coming. He will take cunning measures to please everyone in order that the people will quickly come to love him; he will not accept gifts nor speak in anger nor show a gloomy appearance, but with a decent exterior he will set about deceiving the world, until he is enthroned.8"

Fr. Andrew J. Anderson. The Antichrist: an Orthodox Perspective from the Church Fathers

 

[ViaCrucis]

Dr. Luther was a living testimony of the utter corruption of the most powerful Christian church that existed in the world in the 16th century. It is a snapshot of time that goes all the way back to the dark ages. The leadership of that church were so wicked that they finally pushed millions of people to leave their church of centuries and create their own churches.

I can see not a lot of difference between the popes & cardinals of the Catholic church and the Patriarchs and his assistants from the other churches of the Pentarchy.

And, again, this is why an actual history book would be quite beneficial.

Over the course of my life it's been interesting for me to go from being generally ignorant about the Reformation to learning about it. The pop-narrative about the Reformation has virtually nothing to do with the actual Reformation.

There's also the problem with how we talk about the medieval period of Western Europe. The whole talk of "the dark ages" is a misnomer. When historians speak of an historical dark age they are referring to a period that is "dark" because very little is known about it. This term was first used hundreds of years ago in reference to what we generally call the early middle ages today, and the reason for that application had to do with how little was known about the period at the time. But the period isn't dark, from the sacking of Rome in the 5th century to the rise of the Holy Roman Empire we actually have a pretty clear record of events in Western Europe. So to refer to the period as "the dark ages" is unfit.

But in the modern period, due to a general prejudice that was instilled in Western Society during the Enlightenment in the 18th and 19th centuries a host of misconceptions continue to shape the modern impression of the medieval period--one of barbarity, of backwardness, and spiritual decline. Here are the facts, however: The early medieval period established the foundations of Western Europe, through the diffusion of both Roman and Germanic principles of law. The principles of law used both in the UK (and the Commonwealth Nations) and the United States is based upon Common Law, a doctrine of law that goes back to the medieval Germanic peoples: such as the Franks and Anglo-Saxons. Philosophical, scientific, and technological progress continued throughout the period. It's often claimed that this was a period of intense bloodshed, a common claim is that witches were being regularly burned at the stake (as an example), and yet both civil and ecclesiastical law forbade the hunting and killing of so-called witches as belief in witchcraft was regarded as a pagan superstition (it wasn't Christians, but the pagans of Northern Europe with a history of witchhunting), as such the Imperial Council of Paderborn in addressing the conversion of the Saxons to Christianity denounced the pagan practice of witchhunting and anyone found hunting and killing so-called witches were to be executed for murder; as far as ecclesiastical practice goes the Canon Episcopi established church order, denouncing belief in witches and witchcraft as heathen superstition.

I'm not arguing that the period was a brilliant and enlightened utopia; but it was a far more complicated and interesting period than popular imagination often thinks. It wasn't a "dark age", it was just an age. A period of history in which things happened. A period which, when ignored, gives the impression that Rome fell, and then suddenly a few hundred years later everyone's painting naked people on basilica ceilings.

If you really want to understand Luther's Reformation, there are resources available. But propigating a general ignorance of the Reformation, and perpetuating myths about the middle ages isn't going to help your arguments here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Peter1000]

Alright, well...it sounds like you're stuck on the Mormon alternate history train and refuse to get off for anything. I don't really see what the point of reading any Church history is if you're just going to evaluate it according to Mormonism anyway, and claim that since it doesn't back up your baseless claims it is "whitewashing corruption". There are no Mormon historians on the early Christian Church, so I guess you're stuck misinterpreting and rejecting the very things you're now telling people to read (without telling us what actual works you are talking about when you say the evidence for your claims is in any comprehensive book on church history). That's really odd and unconvincing, but have fun playing church historian. You have no credibility whatsoever and are definitely in Mormon Dan Brown territory, but I suppose expecting anything else was wishful thinking.

OK lets take one event in history. Just one little tiny snapshot of time and see how the leadership of the church was doing. This history comes from the notes of the 2nd Council of Ephesus in 449ad. Emperor Theodosius II convened the council (that should give you a hint to who is the head of the church), and Dioscorus I of Alexandria was the President.
Here is just 1 case that came before the council:

The first case was that of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa. This famous champion of the Antiochian party had been accused of crimes before Domnus, Bishop of Antioch, and had been acquitted, soon after Easter, 448. His accusers had gone to Constantinople and obtained a new trial from the emperor. The bishopsPhotius of Tyre, Eustathius of Berytus, and Uranius of Imeria were to examine the matter. These bishops met at Tyre, removed to Berytus, and returned to Tyre, and eventually acquitted Ibas once more, together with his fellow-accused, Daniel, Bishop of Harran, and John of Theodosianopolis. This was in February, 449. The bishops had been too kind, Cheroeas, Governor of Osrhoene was now ordered to go to Edessa to make a new inquiry. He was received by the people on 12 April with shouts (the detailed summary of which took up some two or three pages of his report), in honour of the emperor, the governor, the late Bishop Rabbula, and against Nestorius and Ibas. Cheroeas sent to Constantinople, with two letters of his own, an elaborate report, detailing all the accusations he could manage to rake together against Ibas. The emperor ordered that a new bishop should be chosen. It was this report, which provided a history of the whole affair, that was now read at length by order of Dioscorus. When the famous letter of Ibas to Maris was read, cries arose such as "These things pollute our ears . . . Cyril is immortal. . . Let Ibas be burnt in the midst of the city of Antioch . . . Exile is of no use. Nestorius and Ibas should be burnt together!" A final indictment was made in a speech by a priest of Edessa named Eulogius. Sentence was finally given against Ibas of deposition and excommunication, without any suggestion that he ought to be cited or that his defence ought to be heard. It is scandalous to find the three bishops who had acquitted him but a few months previously, only anxious to show their concurrence. They even pretended to forget what had been proved at Tyreand Berytus. In the next case, that of Ibas's nephew, Daniel of Harran, they declared that at Tyre they had clearly seen his guilt, and had only acquitted him because of his voluntary resignation. He was quickly deposed by the agreement of all the council. He was, of course, not present and could not defend himself.

Is this the way Jesus Christ operates his true church? The apostasy was in full swing by this time.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

OK lets take one event in history. Just one little tiny snapshot of time and see how the leadership of the church was doing. This history comes from the notes of the 2nd Council of Ephesus in 449ad. Emperor Theodosius II convened the council (that should give you a hint to who is the head of the church), and Dioscorus I of Alexandria was the President.
Here is just 1 case that came before the council:

The first case was that of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa. This famous champion of the Antiochian party had been accused of crimes before Domnus, Bishop of Antioch, and had been acquitted, soon after Easter, 448. His accusers had gone to Constantinople and obtained a new trial from the emperor. The bishopsPhotius of Tyre, Eustathius of Berytus, and Uranius of Imeria were to examine the matter. These bishops met at Tyre, removed to Berytus, and returned to Tyre, and eventually acquitted Ibas once more, together with his fellow-accused, Daniel, Bishop of Harran, and John of Theodosianopolis. This was in February, 449. The bishops had been too kind, Cheroeas, Governor of Osrhoene was now ordered to go to Edessa to make a new inquiry. He was received by the people on 12 April with shouts (the detailed summary of which took up some two or three pages of his report), in honour of the emperor, the governor, the late Bishop Rabbula, and against Nestorius and Ibas. Cheroeas sent to Constantinople, with two letters of his own, an elaborate report, detailing all the accusations he could manage to rake together against Ibas. The emperor ordered that a new bishop should be chosen. It was this report, which provided a history of the whole affair, that was now read at length by order of Dioscorus. When the famous letter of Ibas to Maris was read, cries arose such as "These things pollute our ears . . . Cyril is immortal. . . Let Ibas be burnt in the midst of the city of Antioch . . . Exile is of no use. Nestorius and Ibas should be burnt together!" A final indictment was made in a speech by a priest of Edessa named Eulogius. Sentence was finally given against Ibas of deposition and excommunication, without any suggestion that he ought to be cited or that his defence ought to be heard. It is scandalous to find the three bishops who had acquitted him but a few months previously, only anxious to show their concurrence. They even pretended to forget what had been proved at Tyreand Berytus. In the next case, that of Ibas's nephew, Daniel of Harran, they declared that at Tyre they had clearly seen his guilt, and had only acquitted him because of his voluntary resignation. He was quickly deposed by the agreement of all the council. He was, of course, not present and could not defend himself.

Is this the way Jesus Christ operates his true church? The apostasy was in full swing by this time.

" St. Flavian, in a synod held by him at Constantinople in November, 448, had justly deposed and excommunicated the Archimandrite Eutyches for refusing to admit two natures in Christ. " CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Robber Council of Ephesus (Latrocinium)

That event does not indicate a Great Apostasy as you pretend. It in fact demonstrates that the Church disciplined a person for teaching false doctrine.

Most councils existed to deal with the few teaching false doctrine and as such demonstrates that the church has not fallen into a great apostasy.

You need to throw away the false glasses your church mis-taught you to wear.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Read any comprehensive history of the church.

Avoidance of question and failure to provide references noted.

 

[Peter1000]

" St. Flavian, in a synod held by him at Constantinople in November, 448, had justly deposed and excommunicated the Archimandrite Eutyches for refusing to admit two natures in Christ. " CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Robber Council of Ephesus (Latrocinium)

That event does not indicate a Great Apostasy as you pretend. It in fact demonstrates that the Church disciplined a person for teaching false doctrine.

Most councils existed to deal with the few teaching false doctrine and as such demonstrates that the church has not fallen into a great apostasy.

You need to throw away the false glasses your church mis-taught you to wear.

You are right about that, but you are not telling the rest of the story in regards to Flavian's history.

Flavian did excommunicate Eutyches for false doctrine, but in the Council of Ephesus II there was a different make-up of leaders and he was deposed, and exiled, and could not even defend himself.

In fact when his sentence was pronounced, the President of the Council, Dioscorus of Alexandria allowed soldiers and monks from the outside into the council. Flavian ran to the altar and grabbed hold of it for his life. The soldiers and monks forcefully took him from the altar and beat him and kicked him and then whipped him.

Flavian died a few days later from his wounds in Lydia, and his body was buried in dishonor and obscurity.

That is why I tell you to read the history of Christianity, it is beautiful when the innocent lived the gospel and made a difference in the world, but it was ugly from a leadership prospective, as they did not live the gospel of Jesus Christ, as the case of Ibas and Flavian clearly demonstrate.
This was no longer the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

[Peter1000]

" St. Flavian, in a synod held by him at Constantinople in November, 448, had justly deposed and excommunicated the Archimandrite Eutyches for refusing to admit two natures in Christ. " CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Robber Council of Ephesus (Latrocinium)

That event does not indicate a Great Apostasy as you pretend. It in fact demonstrates that the Church disciplined a person for teaching false doctrine.

Most councils existed to deal with the few teaching false doctrine and as such demonstrates that the church has not fallen into a great apostasy.

You need to throw away the false glasses your church mis-taught you to wear.

Did you read the case of Ibas? Does the reality of "keystone cops" come to mind?

 

[Peter1000]

Avoidance of question and failure to provide references noted.

I didn't, read my other posts.

 

[dzheremi]

OK lets take one event in history. Just one little tiny snapshot of time and see how the leadership of the church was doing. This history comes from the notes of the 2nd Council of Ephesus in 449ad. Emperor Theodosius II convened the council (that should give you a hint to who is the head of the church), and Dioscorus I of Alexandria was the President.

Saying Theodosius II's covening of the council means that he was "the head of the church" makes about as much sense as saying that Constantine was the head of the Church in 325 just because he convened the council of Nicaea in that year. That makes no sense whatsoever when you consider that Nicaea formally condemned the Arians, and yet Constantine himself was baptized by an Arian (Eusebius of Nicomedia) shortly before his death, twelve years after the council.

So either the Church didn't have to listen to its own head (in which case it's kinda difficult to claim that he had the Church under his control), or you're full of baloney for even making such a claim in the first place. The answer is obviously the second option, based on what actually happened.

Here is just 1 case that came before the council:

The first case was that of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa. This famous champion of the Antiochian party had been accused of crimes before Domnus, Bishop of Antioch, and had been acquitted, soon after Easter, 448. His accusers had gone to Constantinople and obtained a new trial from the emperor. The bishopsPhotius of Tyre, Eustathius of Berytus, and Uranius of Imeria were to examine the matter. These bishops met at Tyre, removed to Berytus, and returned to Tyre, and eventually acquitted Ibas once more, together with his fellow-accused, Daniel, Bishop of Harran, and John of Theodosianopolis. This was in February, 449. The bishops had been too kind, Cheroeas, Governor of Osrhoene was now ordered to go to Edessa to make a new inquiry. He was received by the people on 12 April with shouts (the detailed summary of which took up some two or three pages of his report), in honour of the emperor, the governor, the late Bishop Rabbula, and against Nestorius and Ibas. Cheroeas sent to Constantinople, with two letters of his own, an elaborate report, detailing all the accusations he could manage to rake together against Ibas. The emperor ordered that a new bishop should be chosen. It was this report, which provided a history of the whole affair, that was now read at length by order of Dioscorus. When the famous letter of Ibas to Maris was read, cries arose such as "These things pollute our ears . . . Cyril is immortal. . . Let Ibas be burnt in the midst of the city of Antioch . . . Exile is of no use. Nestorius and Ibas should be burnt together!" A final indictment was made in a speech by a priest of Edessa named Eulogius. Sentence was finally given against Ibas of deposition and excommunication, without any suggestion that he ought to be cited or that his defence ought to be heard. It is scandalous to find the three bishops who had acquitted him but a few months previously, only anxious to show their concurrence. They even pretended to forget what had been proved at Tyreand Berytus. In the next case, that of Ibas's nephew, Daniel of Harran, they declared that at Tyre they had clearly seen his guilt, and had only acquitted him because of his voluntary resignation. He was quickly deposed by the agreement of all the council. He was, of course, not present and could not defend himself.

Is this the way Jesus Christ operates his true church? The apostasy was in full swing by this time.

Wait a minute...so your evidence that "the apostasy was in full swing" was that the heretic Ibas was condemned? Or is your problem that he was condemned without being allowed to defend his letter? Because the problem was that the content of the letter itself was heretical. The letter of Ibas to Maris was one of the "three chapters" subsequently condemned in 543 by the Chalcedonians in the wake of the failure of the Henotikon (482), not without some trouble particularly from Western bishops as it was at Chalcedon that Ibas and others who had been stripped of their positions at Ephesus II were readmitted, so it was felt by some that to condemn the writing of Ibas would be to betray Chacledon. Ultimately, however, they all did so in recognition of the fact that indeed the content of the letter and of Ibas' theology insofar as it can be gleaned from the letter and from what he was known to have said and done as reported in various sources (particularly in comparison to those much closer to him in time and space than anyone in Beirut or Aleppo, such as his own predecessor in the Church at Edessa, Rabbula, who was famous for his opposition to Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia) was very wrong. He was officially condemned, along with others of Nestorius' party, at the fifth ecumenical council of the Chalcedonians in Constantinople (553). So Ibas is condemned by basically everybody with the exception of the Nestorians, and nobody really has any problem with that.

If this is your evidence of the Church being "in apostasy", it's really, really weak.