Well, it seems to be you that is moving all over the place.
The Scriptures are to be heeded-period.
To this end, that divine revelation might be preserved more exactly and unchangeably. In holy Scripture we read the words of the Prophets and Apostles precisely (emphasis added) as if we were living with them ... Obviously not, since different bibles yield different words, and different inferences, so precision is not there.
So Chrysostom is incorrect?
Actually, Chrysostom had the correct Bzyantine text type so I would trust his view on Bible more than yours.
Let's just look at the Gospels. The account of the last moments on the Cross are as different as night an day. And yet the only Apostle close enough to have heard Christ would have been +John! Others scattered out of sight, and +Luke wasn't even an Apostle at that time.
The accounts of the Gospels on the last moments are not 'different as night and day' they in fact compliment each other.
Each man was revealed what happened by the Holy Spirit and wrote under His inspiration.
You just reject the Inspiration of Scripture.
Both Christianity and Judaism depend to a large extent on oral teachings (tradition). How precise is that?
Christianity does not depend on oral tradition, but on the written word, which Chrysostom said was if the Apostles and Prophets were speaking to us directly.
+John Chrysostom was using the Scriptures you call 'forgery.' yet, you find his writing agreeable. What he believed was precise rendering of Scriputre could be as different as night and day to you. And he also considered the "Apocrypha" as Scripture.
He was using the correct text Byzantine text type.
We are not discussing what he regarded as scripture, only that scripture were to be trusted as the perfect revelation of God.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle. 2 Thess. ii. 15...Those are statements that any Bible believing Christian could agree with Of course. There is nothing in this that one could disagree with!
Nice dropping the context what was actually said.
since this Creed showed that some of your theologians agreed with us regarding the Hebrew scriptures, Apocrypha and importance of Scripture +John Chrysostom (5th c) did not subscribe to Hebrew scriptures, but to the same Scriptures the Orthodox subscribe to even today: Septuagint OT (with "Apocrypha") and the New Testament (sans Revelation, which was accepted after the 9th century AD)
We were not talking about Chrysostom in that regard, we are talking about the theologians who made up your Catechism which I cited.
Chrysostom was a bible-believer who believed that God had given us Scriptures that ought to be believed and obeyed.
That is something that you clearly reject.
Really? Because I never did I suggest the scriptures were generated ar random or had no purpose? That really makes lot of sense (not!).
So Chrysostom is incorrect?
In his assertion that "In holy Scripture we read the words of the Prophets and Apostles precisely as if we were living with them ..." — yes.
Each man was revealed what happened by the Holy Spirit and wrote under His inspiration
The favorite "escape clause" when logic fails, isn't it?
You just reject the Inspiration of Scripture
Only when it is used by others as an excuse to "prove" their point.
Christianity does not depend on oral tradition...
Wrong again. Christ didn't write anything (except in the sand), and His disciples preached for many years before anything was written down by them (take +John, he wrote at the end of the 1st century, and all this time he had to have preached by word of mouth only). I would call that "oral tradition."
We are not discussing what he regarded as scripture, only that scripture were to be trusted as the perfect revelation of God.
The revelation may be perfect, just like the soul God gives us is flawless. Somewhere along the line it becomes "less flawless."
We were not talking about Chrysostom in that regard, we are talking about the theologians who made up your Catechism which I cited
Every Orthodox so-called 'catechism' I read was different. The EOC does NOT have an official 'catechism.'
Chrysostom was a bible-believer who believed that God had given us Scriptures that ought to be believed and obeyed. That is something that you clearly reject
I reject robotoic obedience to something that was obviously havily tainted with human fancy, agendas, and errors. If we had the originals, that would be a different story.