Small Orthodox corner

[Cookiegod]

What I wrote came from the mouth of Jesus Christ, part of an instruction not to believe false teachers. Where is that out of context? So, pray tell me where I do one thing after saying another?

You claimed that the quote called for the rejection of all teachers and spiritual leaders. Which is a straight up lie for all the reasons listed before.

The one last thing Jesus said to the disciples was to go out into the world and preach the Gospel. Where does it say they have to lock themselves away and not preach the Gospel? Concerning the thread where is it written that I am not allowed to share my views in it? So, is it my wisdom that is really at stake here or is it a poor defence of not practising what God has decreed?

You have even Jesus himself going away into the wilderness, and he spent only one year of his life preaching to his community. For you to yet again jump to an extreme that every Christian has to be proselytising constantly and everywhere is yet again a good example of you drawing unwarranted conclusions and taking them to the extreme.

To reiterate: You do not have your own house in order. At times you straight up misrepresent what the bible says. At other times your interpretations are taken to a completely unwarranted extreme, as we've seen plenty of examples on.
This is like washing your hands until all the skin is rubbed off, just because someone told you to wash your hands.

And finally, this thread was made for orthodox Christians to exchange between one another. We're not heathens for you to proselytise. Especially since it is you who's rejecting a vast amount of Christian tradition.

So where in my posting anywhere have I spoken against the words of Jesus Christ?

I already gave you a perfect example for that in the post you're responding to.

Where have I said that one should have no Spiritual leaders?

Here:

So, when Jesus says, " Call no man father except your Father in heaven..." why do certain religions insist on calling their priests and monks father? 1 Peter 2;5-9 tells us that all born again believers are priests with Jesus being the Head of that priesthood.

And again, as laid out unambiguously in the post you just now responded to Jesus is not at all saying what you claim.

He didn't mean it? Jesus Christ is God and these words are His not mine so if I am sinning by quoting them I stand guilty as charged.

What he said, he meant. What you're doing though is blatantly ripping them out of context. Which a true priest wouldn't do.

[basics]

Cookiegod,

The chapter has Jesus talking to His disciples and followers about the hypocrisy of the men who were leading the Jews at that time. They thought much of themselves and He was exposing this. In verse 9 of chapter 23 He says, " And call no man your father upon the earth; for One is your Father, which is in heaven." Are these words to be ignored, torn out of the chapter because you don't agree with them? Oh you may protect this thread but where are you on the other threads when it comes to protecting the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ?

[AnthoniusII]

To avoid missunderstandings.
The foundation Rules of Christianity were created in the Hecoumenical Councils NOT the Bible.
The Bible just like the Quran are books that summarise some proncipals but not the ENTIRE messages if the religions.
For example.
In the 1st Hecoumenical Council there is the findamental primcipal of Christianity "All people are Icons and "COPIES" OF GOD" . The principal DOES NOT separate people by their religion, skin color or race.
Bible like the Quran can be read with the prospective each one WANTS to believe (actually each one creates its own religion). But in reality both Christianity and Islam have strict rules that are not part of those BOOKS.
That is the rason why after the heretism of the Pope of Rome thousands of heretic dogmas were created and still be created each year. Only in US there are more than 200. The funny thing is that Christians "believe" pseudo prophets that infront of cammeras suposely make miracles but INFACT OFFENDING GOD HIMESELF. God Does Not need any Prophet to make a miracle.
Conclussion. Bible is an instrument but according of HOW you read it may lead you in sin. Its not Bible's fault though that westarn -even today - are not capable to understand complicated meanings that only the Greek language can offer. That is why St Paul use Greek language for his teachings.

[Derc]

We're not heathens for you to proselytise.

No heathens to Wololo on, but heathens nonetheless. xoxo <3

[Cookiegod]

Cookiegod,

The chapter has Jesus talking to His disciples and followers about the hypocrisy of the men who were leading the Jews at that time. They thought much of themselves and He was exposing this. In verse 9 of chapter 23 He says, " And call no man your father upon the earth; for One is your Father, which is in heaven." Are these words to be ignored, torn out of the chapter because you don't agree with them? Oh you may protect this thread but where are you on the other threads when it comes to protecting the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ? Are these words to be ignored, torn out of the chapter because you don't agree with them?

Classic sophistry where you pretend that this is what you were saying all along. Except that what you actually said is still there:

So, when Jesus says, " Call no man father except your Father in heaven..." why do certain religions insist on calling their priests and monks father? 1 Peter 2;5-9 tells us that all born again believers are priests with Jesus being the Head of that priesthood.

Let me be absolutely clear:
1) I do not say that Jesus' words are to be dismissed.
2) What Jesus is actually saying, is that one is to be sceptical towards false preachers.
3) You admit now that this is what he said. What you said before was a whole different thing altogether.
4) He's clearly not rejecting all religious hierarchy, which was your unambiguous claim before.
5) Nor is he saying that you should call no one father. I proved that to you without any possibility for you to deny this by pointing you to Luke 11.
If this had been the actual point he'd been making, then that same quote would be there as well.
6) Tell me if the following reasoning is sound: "Jesus says this, and I make it sound like something completely different. Are you saying that we should dismiss him because if you disagree with me you're disagreeing with Jesus."
No? It's certainly not reasonable from my perspective. And yet that's the ultimate reasoning behind your rhetorical question right here:

Are these words to be ignored, torn out of the chapter because you don't agree with them?

Aren't run-of-the-mill sophistries and false equivalences designed to mislead your counterpart the hallmark of a false priest? If so what position do you think Jesus would have on you?
Unlike you I do not claim to speak for him. I proved you wrong because you without question were with what you said before. But anyone can be mistaken.
This is where your current attitude comes in:
- A true priest would have admitted to his mistake or at least moved on instead of claiming something else after.
- False priests "do not practice what they preach." (Matthew 23,3).
It is best to judge someone on his actions rather than his words.

Oh you may protect this thread but where are you on the other threads when it comes to protecting the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ?

You must think god to be incredibly weak if he needs anyone's protection, but it doesn't matter either way. I am protecting it here, as my lord commandeth me:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Thou art weighed in the balances, basics, and art found wanting.

[alhoon]

Conclussion. Bible is an instrument but according of HOW you read it may lead you in sin. Its not Bible's fault though that westarn -even today - are not capable to understand complicated meanings that only the Greek language can offer. That is why St Paul use Greek language for his teachings.

The reason heresies exist is not the superiority of Greek language, but imperfect understanding of the Word of God, that no human can completely understand.
We Orthodox are closer but we will never fully understand either, whatever language we use.

[Sir Adrian]

Yes but the truth is that the KJB and the catholic bibles based on the vulgate do suffer from extremely poor translation that failed to catch the homonymy of the various greek words. Example thou shalt not kill is really thou shall not murder.

[AnthoniusII]

The reason heresies exist is not the superiority of Greek language, but imperfect understanding of the Word of God, that no human can completely understand.
We Orthodox are closer but we will never fully understand either, whatever language we use.

Yo may not like it. But take a quick zapping in US TV chanels. You will find TV Prophets that use the Bible as instrument to convince people that they are miracle makers.
YES YOU LIKE IT or NOT language was the main obstacle in the understandings of the PRINCIPALS of Christianity starting from the nature of the Holly Trinity to the use of Icons.
You may not know that in the Iconoclastic period it was the POPE that insisted to remain the icons a kind of comic on the Churches to "teach" the uneducated barbarians of the west. On th eother side Christians of Thessaloniki and Antiocheia remained true to use only primary symbols like the Cross, the Fish etc but NOT icons and their excuse was that they did not need "comic" icons to understand the principals of the Faith. The Germanic languages like the German, English, French, Italian had very limited vocabulary to "explain" very complicated ideas. THAT IS THE REASON that SIENCE still uses Greek names about spieces or plants or phaenomena coppying the Greek methodology of the Antiquity. Ofcourse the Schism was a rather political actions but brought in the surface the lack of ther abillity to accuratly translate Christians ideas and Rules. That is why Catholicism created over 2000 sub herecies untill today. Its THE FACT not my purpose to offend those people.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

The Germanic languages like the German, English, French, Italian had very limited vocabulary to "explain" very complicated ideas.

French and italian are romanic languages, not germanic ones. They developed from regional spoken latin dialects.

And i doubt that Jesus or most of the apostles have spoken the educated koine greek of the late eastroman bishops.

So you have already possible mistranslations from aramean to greek.

So Alhoon is right.

Edit: The reason why the Pope defended icons, is simply, that the majority of the agrarian population of his time, even great parts of the nobility, were illiterates.

Even in most of the greek speaking half of the roman empire this was the case.

Elementary education was widely available throughout most of the Byzantine Empire's existence, in towns and occasionally in the countryside.^[41] This, in turn, ensured that literacy was much more widespread than in Western Europe, at least until the twelfth century.^[41][42]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Greeks#Teachers

The icons were needed for the common population to understand the christian message.

[AnthoniusII]

French and italian are romanic languages, not germanic ones. They developed from regional spoken latin dialects.

And i doubt that Jesus or most of the apostles have spoken the educated koine greek of the late eastroman bishops.

So you have already possible mistranslations from aramean to greek.

So Alhoon is right.

Edit: The reason why the Pope defended icons, is simply, that the majority of the agrarian population of his time, even great parts of the nobility, were illiterates.

Even in most of the greek speaking half of the roman empire this was the case.

The icons were needed for the common population to understand the christian message.

You are wrong. In where France is today FRANKS (germanic tribe) pushed back Gauls (roman citizens) and took their lands.
In UK of today Saxons and Angles (germanic tribes) pushed away the guals (roman citizens) and took their lands.
Lombards (a germanic tribe) pushed back Goths (germans) in Italy and took their lands. In 1180 a Bishop of Rome (the city) visited Roman Empire's capital (Constantinople) and when he returned he wrote how poor his latin were compared to those that Roman officials in the Greek speaking Roman Empire spoke! ONLY the monks , priests and bishops knew FRAGMENTS of Latin language (not even the entire extention of them).
History my friend is a munber of FACTS that can not be changed because we do not like them.
Take a look of how those people call their countries.
France from Franks
French call Germany Allemagne from the germanic tribe of Alamani
England (land of Angles)
Now see how modern Greeks that still call them selvs Romans call those countries.
Gallia = Frane
Hispania (not Spain) = Spain
Bretania = England
Even Switzerland Greeks call it Helvetia.
See how Greeks as the last Roman citizens kept latin terms that Germanic people care little to preserve?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Sorry, Anthonius, thats not true.

French:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language

Also:

In a modern linguistic context, the language of the early Franks is variously called "Old Frankish" or "Old Franconian" and these terms refer to the language of the Franks prior to the advent of the High German consonant shift, which took place between 600 and 700 CE. After this consonant shift the Frankish dialect diverges, with the dialects which would become modern Dutch not undergoing the consonantal shift, while all others did so to varying degrees.[50] As a result, the distinction between Old Dutch and Old Frankish is largely negligible, with Old Dutch (also called Old Low Franconian) being the term used to differentiate between the affected and non-affected variants following the aforementioned Second Germanic consonant shift.[51]

The Frankish language has not been directly attested, apart from a very small number of runic inscriptions found within contemporary Frankish territory such as the Bergakker inscription. Nevertheless a significant amount of Frankish vocabulary has been reconstructed by examining early Germanic loanwords found in Old French as well as through comparative reconstruction through Dutch.[52][53] The influence of Old Frankish on contemporary Gallo-Roman vocabulary and phonology, have long been questions of scholarly debate.[54] Frankish influence is thought to include the designations of the four cardinal directions: nord "north", sud "south", est "east" and ouest "west" and at least an additional 1000 stem words.[53]

Although the Franks would eventually conquer all of Gaul, speakers of Frankish apparently expanded in sufficient numbers only into northern Gaul to have a linguistic effect. For several centuries, northern Gaul was a bilingual territory (Vulgar Latin and Frankish). The language used in writing, in government and by the Church was Latin. Urban T. Holmes has proposed that a Germanic language continued to be spoken as a second tongue by public officials in western Austrasia and Northern Neustria as late as the 850s, and that it completely disappeared as a spoken language during the 10th century from regions where only French is spoken today.[55]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks#Language

Italian:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_language

Also:

The Lombardic language is extinct (unless Cimbrian and Mocheno represent surviving dialects).[78] It declined beginning in the 7th century, but may have been in scattered use until as late as about the year 1000. Only fragments of the language have survived, the main evidence being individual words quoted in Latin texts. In the absence of Lombardic texts, it is not possible to draw any conclusions about the language's morphology and syntax. The genetic classification of the language depends entirely on phonology. Since there is evidence that Lombardic participated in, and indeed shows some of the earliest evidence for, the High German consonant shift, it is usually classified as an Elbe Germanic or Upper German dialect.[79]
The runic inscription from the Pforzen buckle may be the earliest written example of Lombardic language

Lombardic fragments are preserved in runic inscriptions. Primary source texts include short inscriptions in the Elder Futhark, among them the "bronze capsule of Schretzheim" (c. 600) and the silver belt buckle found in Pforzen, Ostallgäu (Schwaben). A number of Latin texts include Lombardic names, and Lombardic legal texts contain terms taken from the legal vocabulary of the vernacular. In 2005, Emilia Denčeva argued that the inscription of the Pernik sword may be Lombardic.[80]

The Italian language preserves a large number of Lombardic words, although it is not always easy to distinguish them from other Germanic borrowings such as those from Gothic or from Frankish. They often bear some resemblance to English words, as Lombardic was akin to Old Saxon.[81] For instance, landa from land, guardia from wardan (warden), guerra from werra (war), ricco from rikki (rich), and guadare from wadjan (to wade).

The Codice diplomatico longobardo, a collection of legal documents, makes reference to many Lombardic terms, some of them still in use in the Italian language:

barba (beard), marchio (mark), maniscalco (blacksmith), aia (courtyard), braida (suburban meadow), borgo (burg, village), fara (fundamental unity of Lombard social and military organization, presently used as toponym), picco (peak, mountain top, also used as toponym), sala (hall, room, also used as toponym), staffa (stirrup), stalla (stable), sculdascio, faida (feud), manigoldo (scoundrel), sgherro (henchman); fanone (baleen), stamberga (hovel); anca (hip), guancia (cheek), nocca (knuckle), schiena (back); gazza (magpie), martora (marten); gualdo (wood, presently used as toponym), pozza (pool); verbs like bussare (to knock), piluccare (to peck), russare (to snore).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards#Language

Both Franks and Lombards assimilated into the regional roman culture.

[Cookiegod]

You are wrong. In where France is today FRANKS (germanic tribe) pushed back Gauls (roman citizens) and took their lands.

No she's not. Galloromans continued to pose the majority of the population. German settlers got assimilated. The populations were not replaced.

In UK of today Saxons and Angles (germanic tribes) pushed away the guals (roman citizens) and took their lands.

Slightly more correct. The Germanic tribes did indeed manage to replace the local population over a long period of time. This exempted the extremities however. Cornwall, Wales and Scotland. Those weren't settled that much, but rather assimilated over a process that took over a milennia.

Lombards (a germanic tribe) pushed back Goths (germans) in Italy and took their lands.

Absolutely not. First of all Goths were already defeated when the Lombards arrived. Secondly, much like the Franks they lived separately from the native populations. The senate continued to meet, and whilst Germanic laws were applied to Germans, Roman law was meted out to Romans.

In 1180 a Bishop of Rome (the city) visited Roman Empire's capital (Constantinople) and when he returned he wrote how poor his latin were compared to those that Roman officials in the Greek speaking Roman Empire spoke! ONLY the monks , priests and bishops knew FRAGMENTS of Latin language (not even the entire extention of them).

Well that's quite a long jump in time. By that time the Lombards hadn't existed for 4 centuries. A random hand picked anecdote says nothing.

History my friend is a munber of FACTS that can not be changed because we do not like them.

Well you just tried to change the facts, so...

Take a look of how those people call their countries.
France from Franks
French call Germany Allemagne from the germanic tribe of Alamani
England (land of Angles)
Now see how modern Greeks that still call them selvs Romans call those countries.
Gallia = Frane
Hispania (not Spain) = Spain
Bretania = England
Even Switzerland Greeks call it Helvetia.
See how Greeks as the last Roman citizens kept latin terms that Germanic people care little to preserve?

Umbria is clearly still inhabited by the Umbrians. North Macedonia must be the true successors to Macedon, because why else would they call themselves that.

Meanwhile, modern Greek, unlike what you seem to think, is quite different from ancient Greek. Which btw. is totally fine. It had a long history and didn't stand still. But neither did the other languages of the world.

[basics]

Cookiegod,

Go out into all the world and preach the Gospel. Does that ring a bell? That's what Jesus told His disciples to do, now since you're so terribly pious why don't you? Wanting by whom?

[Cookiegod]

Going out is not in my sedentary nature.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

The Germanic languages like the German, English, French, Italian had very limited vocabulary to "explain" very complicated ideas.

One final word on this: even the greek language acquired some thousands words from a till today unknown language.

The Pre-Greek substrate (or Pre-Greek substratum) consists of the unknown language(s) spoken in prehistoric Greece before the coming of the Proto-Greek language in the area during the Bronze Age. It is possible that Greek acquired some thousand words and proper names from such a language(s), because some of its vocabulary cannot be satisfactorily explained as deriving from Proto-Greek and a Proto-Indo-European reconstruction is almost impossible for such terms.^[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Greek_substrate

Examples:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Pre-Greek loanwords

There are different categories of words that have been suggested to be pre-Greek, or "Aegean", loanwords such as:^[12][13]

• Anatomy:
  
  • αὐχήν, aukhḗn, 'neck';
  • λαιμός, laimós, 'neck, throat';
  • ῥίς, rhī́s, 'nose, snout';
  • σιαγών, siagṓn, 'jaw, jawbone';
  • σπόνδυλος/σφόνδυλος, spóndylos/sphóndylos, 'vertebra';
  • σφάκελος/σφάκηλος, sphákelos/sphákēlos, 'middle finger'.
  
  
• Animals:
  
  • ἀράχνη, arákhnē, 'spider';
  • βόλινθος/βόνασσος, bólinthos/bónassos, 'wild ox';
  • κάνθαρος, kántharos, 'beetle';
  • κῆτος, kêtos, 'whale, sea monster';
  • πελεκῖνος, pelekînos, 'pelican';
  • σμίνθος, smínthos, 'mouse'.
  
  
• Architecture and building materials:
  
  • ἄργῐλλος/ἄργῑλος/ἄργῐλλα, árgillos/árgīlos/árgilla, 'white clay, argil';
  • καλύβη/καλυβός/κολυβός, kalýbē/kalybós/kolybós, 'hut, cabin';
  • λαβύρινθος, labýrinthos, 'labyrinth';
  • πέτρα, pétrā, 'stone (as building material)';
  • πλίνθος, plínthos, 'brick';
  • πύργος, pýrgos, 'tower'.^[14]
  
  
• Geography and topography:
  
  • ἄμβων/ἄμβη, ámbōn/ámbē, 'crest of a hill', 'raised edge or protuberance';^[6]
  • κρημνός, krēmnós, 'edge of a trench, cliff';
  • κορυφή, koruphḗ, 'mountain top';
  • ὄχθη, ókhthē, 'riverbank';
  • σπέος/σπεῖος, spéos/speîos, 'cave, cavern';
  • χαράδρα/χαράδρη, kharádra/kharádrē, 'torrent, riverbed, gorge';
  
  
• Maritime vocabulary:
  
  • ἄκατος, ákatos, 'small dinghy, skiff'.
  • θάλασσα, thálassa, 'sea'.
  • θάλαμος, thálamos, 'an inner room or chamber', 'the lowest, darkest part of the ship', 'the hold';^[6]
  • θίς, thī́s, 'heap of sand, beach, shore, sand at the bottom of the sea';
  • κυβερνάω, kybernáō, 'to steer, to be a steerman'.
  
  
• Metals and metallurgy:
  
  • κασσίτερος, kassíteros, 'tin';
  • μόλυβδος, mólybdos, 'lead';
  • σίδηρος, sídēros, 'iron';
  • τάγχουρος/τάγχαρας/ἄγχουρος, tánkhouros/tánkharas/ánkhouros, 'gold';
  • χαλκός, chalkós, 'copper'.
  
  
• Musical instruments:
  
  • κίθαρις, kítharis, 'zither';
  • λύρα, lýra, 'lyre';
  • σάλπιγξ, sálpinx, 'trumpet';
  • σύριγξ, sýrinx, 'flute';
  • φόρμιγξ, phórminx, 'lyre'.
  
  
• Mythological characters:
  
  • Δαναός, Danaós, Danaus;
  • Κάδμος, Kádmos, Cadmus;
  • Ὀδυσσεύς, Odysseús, Odysseus;^[15]
  • Ῥαδάμανθυς, Rhadámanthys, Rhadamanthus.
  
  
• Plants:
  
  • ἄμπελος, ámpelos, 'vine';
  • ἀψίνθιον, apsínthion, 'wormwood' or 'absinthe';
  • ἐλαία, elaía, 'olive tree';
  • κισσός, kissós, 'ivy';
  • κολοκύνθη/κολοκύνθα/κολοκύνθος/κολοκύντη, kolokýnthē/kolokýntha/kolokýnthos/kolokýntē, 'bottle gourd';
  • κυπάρισσος, kypárissos, 'cypress';
  • σταφυλή, staphylḗ, 'grape';
  • σῦκον/τῦκον, sŷkon/tŷkon, 'fig'.
  
  
• Social practices and institutions:
  
  • ἅμιλλα, hámilla, 'contest, trial, sporting activity';
  • ἀτέμβω, atémbō, 'maltreat' or 'to be bereft or cheated of a thing';^[6]
  • ϝάναξ/ἄναξ, wánax/ánax, 'lord, king';
  • θίασος, thíasos, 'thiasus, Bacchic revel';
  • τύραννος, týrannos, 'absolute ruler'.
  
  
• Theonyms:
  
  • Ἀπόλλων, Apóllōn, Apollo;^[16][17]
  • Ἄρης, Arēs, Ares;^[17]
  • Ἄρτεμις, Ártemis, Artemis;^[17]
  • Ἀσκληπιός, Asklēpiós, Asclepius;^[18]
  • Ἀθήνη, Athḗnē, Athena;^[17]
  • Ἄτλας, Átlās, Atlas;^[18]
  • Διόνῡσος, Diónȳsos, Dionysus;^[18]
  • Ἑρμῆς, Hermês, Hermes;^[19]
  • Ἥφαιστος, Hḗphaistos, Hephaestus;^[20][19]
  • Ἰαπετός, Īapetós, Iapetus.^[19]
  
  
• Tools related to agricultural activities:
  
  • δίκελλα, díkella, 'adze, pickaxe';
  • κάμαξ, kámax, 'vine pole';
  • μάκελλα, mákella, 'mattock, pick';
  • χαλινός, khalīnós, 'bridle, rein'.
  
  
• Toponyms/placenames:
  
  • -νθ-, -nth- (e.g. Κόρινθος, Kórinthos, Corinth; Ζάκυνθος, Zákynthos, Zakynthos);
  • -σσ-, -ss- (e.g. Παρνασσός, Parnassós, Parnassus);
  • -ττ-, -tt- (e.g. Ἀττική, Attikḗ, Attica; Ὑμηττός, Hymēttós, Hymettus);^[21]
  • region names e.g. Ἀχαΐα, , Lakōníā, Achaea; Λακωνία, Lakōníā, Laconia; Μαγνησία, Magnēsíā, Magnesia;
  • city names e.g. Δωδώνη, Dōdṓnē, Dodona; Κνωσσός, Knōssós, Knossos; Κυδωνία, Kydōníā, Cydonia;
  • isles e.g. Κρήτη, Krḗtē, Crete; Νάξος, Náxos, Naxos;
  • mountain names e.g.Ὄλυμπος, Ólympos, Olympus; Πίνδος, Píndos, Pindus;
  • hydronyms e.g. Ἀχελῷος, Akhelôios, Achelous; Γέλας, Gélās, Gela; Ἰλισός, Īlīsós, Ilisos;
  • other geographical features e.g. Σούνιον, Soúnion, Sounion;
  • mythological locations e.g. Ἠλύσιον, Ēlýsion, Elysium.
  
  
• Use of domestic species:
  
  • ἔλαιον, élaion, 'olive oil';
  • λήκυθος, lḗkythos, 'oil-flask';
  • κάνθων, kánthōn, 'pack-ass';
  • στέμφυλον, stémphylon, 'mass of olives from which the oil has been pressed, mass of pressed grapes'.
  
  
• Weapons:
  
  • θώραξ, thṓrax, 'corselet';
  • μάστιξ, mástīx, 'whip';
  • σιβύνη, síbynē, 'hunting spear';
  • ὑσσός, hyssós, 'javelin'.
  
  
• Weaving:
  
  • ἀρύβαλλος, arýballos, 'purse';
  • βρόχος, brókhos, 'slip knot, mesh';
  • ἠλακάτη, ēlakátē, 'spindle';
  • μύρινθος, mýrinthos, 'cord'.
  
  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Greek_substrate

Its normal for a living, developing language to incorporate such words, if you have contact to a different culture and learn something new.

Only stupid people are too proud to learn something from other people.

[AnthoniusII]

There are Mycenean language ellements still ussing today though.
Anax = High King
Laos = people but in mycenean era ment the army
Lahgethes =army leader hgetis still means leaders
OHA = Chariot the word still used when we are trying to say that something is carrying by a transport vehicle (epochoymeno).
Lohagos
Corys = hair plume still used with the same meaning
Aegis = shield that made with goat leather.
Thyreos = Door back then it was the huge shield.
Xiphos
AOR ment a kind os sword but the main vain that crosses the body from legs to the heart and has the same direction with the loeather strap that aor was hanged caller AORTER
Hellenic language has 4500 years of development. That is why it was easy for Greeks to develop names and terms for complicated ideas and meanings. See my apeal for insulting others to see some examples.
It was no accident that St Paul wrote all his letters to Greek language even to the Romans!

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Anax is a pre-greek word. Mycaeneans didn't invent it, they borrow it from an older pre-greek language, which existed before the arrival of the Proto-Greeks in the Aegaeis.

See my post above.

Paul wrote in greek, because he was born in the hellenistic city of Tarsos and he was an hellenistic educated jew.

He spoke no Latin, which was normal for the hellenistic east.

[AnthoniusII]

Linear B language is Greek. I wrote you few examples of words of them still use today.
The list may include more than 1000 words of linear B writing alphabet of Mycenean (Achaean ) Language.
Check the Mycenean armors here that the creator uses the linear B writing and its translation. https://www.facebook.com/HellenicArmors
Sorry my friend but Myceneans and Minoans were Greeks don'y believe the indoeuropean myth created in 18th century to "justify" the superiority of the German nation!
https://www.hellenicarmors.gr/en/
https://www.hellenicarmors.gr/en/armors/mycenaean/

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Sorry Anthonius, that an indo-european language family is existing, which descended from a single prehistoric language (Proto-Indo-European) in the neolithic era, is common opinion between all serious linguists. Greek belongs to this language family.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages

So if you can't derivate "anax" from proto-greek or another indo-european language its borrowed from an older, pre-greek language.

No amount of random greek nationalistic YT-Videos or anecdotes can change that fact.

But its pointless at this point. You obviously live in a greek supremacy bubble and don't even bother to read something different.

[Cookiegod]

Anthonius, if you had read ancient Greek literature when they discuss their own origins, you'd be aware that they themselves discuss such things as e.g. the Dorian invasion.

The Indoeuropean languages are a family groups whose links are fairly traceable. In fact, linguistic and DNA evidence work hand in hand and complement each other when it comes to tracing how our ancestors wandered about, at what point they must have split, etc.

Anyway. Greek, Latin, Celtic and Germanic have fairly obvious links. The -s endings for example. Be it logos in Greek, domus in latin, celtic or ridaraz in Germanic. In fact if we take for example the oldest surviving Celtic inscriptions, even with zero knowledge of the celtic but with the knowledge of other indoeuropean languages you can easily see that they and their declensions make sense.

They all share this trait because their common ancestor had this trait as well. Indo-european languages are very distinct from non-indoeuropean.

It also cannot be said that the indo-european language family is the only one in the world. There are plenty, especially in Africa, which has the highest phonetic variety in the world, as it also has been the longest settled region of the world.
Keep in mind when looking at this map here, you'll find languages with larger differences close to each other than between indo-european languages that lie thousands of kilometers apart.

Next: "Anax" probably has indo-european origins, and was already considered ancient and out of date by the time Homer wrote about it. Who, btw., gives a pristine view into the world of that time, including the language. The word "blue" (=kyanos) for example is almost entirely absent, and where it's used, it means something entirely different (dark). Instead, when describing the colour of the sea, Homer calls it wine-faced, meaning purple.

These linguistic developments are a very beautiful and interesting thing to dive into, but sadly you likely never will, as you've trapped yourself in that nationalist prism.

You remind me of this: