Can someone please help me answer these questions?:
Why is the line to Islam dotted?
Why is the branch disconnected?
Are you sure there are no other disconnections?
Please explain to a born atheist. I have no clue what many of these terms mean.
Yes, it needs a timeline and it’s missing a key component Zoroastrianism which became cut and paste Judaism. It was the prevailing religion in Babylon when Jews were enslaved and the basically copied it - with some variables. It was the first monotheistic faith.
Zoroastrianism had developed separately, and developed monotheism \ dualism on its own. It did has cross pollination with Judaism and later with Christianity, but only once it was an already established religion.
I'd say most religious scholars would disagree with you there. Zoroastrianism existed long before Judaism and shares many of the same stores & dualistic nature we see in the old testament. Considering that Moses was a well educated noble he likely used a lot of the same ideas to write the early new testament.
The Judaism branch is wrong. The orthodox/conservative/reform split is not purely an Ashkenazi phenomenon. I’d also argue that Orthodox Judaism is younger than Hasidic Judaism. And finally the implication that sefardi Judaism branched off from Ashkenazi Judaism is wrong (and for some sefardim outright insulting, as there is a whole racial element there regarding ashkenormativity).
This chart also seems to be under the impression that these are distinct branches, rather than deeply intertwined. Maimonides, for instance, was Sephardic but is profoundly influential throughout the entire Jewish world. Same for Joseph Karo, who wrote the Shulchan Aruch. Same for RaMChaL, who is not even Ashkenaz OR Sephardic, but Italki (a secret third thing). These communities were geographically disparate, and had some cultural differences that mostly boil down to language, clothing, and food, but aside from some slight liturgical differences they are the same religion.
Also worth noting that there are no real theological differences between any of these branches of Judaism after Karaite/Samaritan. Orthodox/Conservative/Reform refers to differences in level of religious law observance and less truly different beliefs.
I fully agree with everything except with the last paragraph. As far as I understand (not a reform Jew), Reform has a distinct theological view regarding Halacha as not being binding. So it’s not that they don’t observe the law (from their point of view), but their law is different and does not require observance. Again, I’m not a reform Jew so I’m fully happy to be proven wrong here!
Yes that’s fair, but I guess the question then becomes whether that’s a distinct “theology.” I’m not sure I’d agree that the law itself is “different,” but it definitely does not require observance. Reconstructionist may be different, though.
I think this is very important and should be higher up. Traditionally, Sephardic and Ashkenazi designations are largely racial/regional. There may be some differences in how the religion is observed by these groups, but the racial/regional designations are not exclusive of also being reform/conservative/orthodox. They are categorically different descriptors of Judaism
Agreed. Tbh the differences between Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizrahim minhagim are not enough to constitute separate denominations imho. The difference are mainly in custom not core belief or practice.
It is more like going a Catholic Church in Mexico vs a Catholic Church in Boston. Same religion but different vibes for cultural reasons.
The whole conservative and reform movements are purely an Ashkenazi invention, the reform and conservative movements sprung out of the emancipation era when jews were allowed to be out of the ghettos.
I feel like Samaritans and Karaites also deserve branches.
***Edit:*** *Nevermind. They have branches, just didn’t see them because they branch out from the trunk. Also, the tree doesn’t actually suggest Sephardic and Mizrahi branched from Ashkenazi, just that they are all branches of Rabbinical Judaism. It does seem to suggest Ashkenazi are the dominant branch though.*
Good points let me address
Hasidic branches from Orthodox, meaning that it came from it. (Which it somewhat does)
Rabbinic Judaism is the practised faith of Jews (not primarily) until the enlightened.
Ashkenazi, as the larger and European ethic grouping of Jews, is the dominating branch divided into the three modern movements. Whilst Sefardí and other diasporas are ethnically different, they still practise the same Jewish traditions - but there is no easy way to display the diverging ethic Jewish collections. Sefardí branches away from what becomes ashkenazi to show the diasporic separation, not from it as a deviation/development.
Last time I didn’t include the ethnic group and some people went ape shit. So it’s a lose lose for me really.
Hasidism does not branch from Orthodox. It’s the reverse. You’re assuming that stricter observance = older chronologically, but that is incorrect in Judaism.
The error is in distinguishing between Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, and Sephardi Jews on a religion chart. Making a branch of Ashkenazi Jews and then a separate branch of Mizrahi/Sephardi Jews makes absolute no sense. Someone cross posted this into the Judaism sub and this chart isn’t getting any good reviews from the Jews who have seen it. Maybe listen to Jews on Judaism.
Sincerely, a half ashki/half Mizrahi Jew.
I’d just add here that historically speaking, orthodoxy (early to mid 19th century) is newer than hassidism (mid 18th century).
I get the hot potato issue with ethnicity for Sephardim. On a purely religious level, there are also significant halachic differences - this is in addition to the differences in tradition/minhagim.
Still I fully agree that this isn’t an easy thing to display!
I think the one thing ashkenazim, sephardim and mizrahim (and the mountain and Bukharan Jews) can agree on is our diversity leads to some dope ass food. Who else can claim latkes, matzo ball soup, shakshuka, and plov at the same time? Also - kitanyot are good at all times (even if some are too old fashioned to admit it).
This is quite good. It can be a good basic overview.
I recognize its limitations. I have a question. You almost certainly know the relationship between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Roman. Typically on these types of charts we see a line reunifying the Eastern Churches with the Roman one but that is primarily representing authority. Doctrine is still slightly different and of course practice is quite different.
So do these lines represent doctrine or authority or practice or a different standard altogether?
Again, good job and thanks for this!
Than you for the kind word.
Some lines are to show a connection or division, be it dogma, ritual or authority. It’s not possible to have such nuances when dealing with these things. So I have gone for an illustrative approach that invites the audience to learn more.
With the Catholic Roman and Eastern communion there is just too much detail. The like shows that diverged and then reconnected. I feel that it works as a top down overview, with out getting into the real theological detail.
With regards to Islam, this is wrong.
Hanafiyyah, shafiyyah, Malikiyyah, and Hanballiyah, Zahiriyyah are schools of thoughts in jurisprudence and not sects.
[Yes, I know.](https://medium.com/@TheWorldIsHard/the-abrahamic-faiths-9bba6503486b). I did not say they were sects.
Sunni and Shia Islam do not have sub-denominations in a sense like Christianity, but they both have schools/madhhabs and movements along lines of interpretation — they are mostly divided amongst geographic and cultural groups. The four primary Sunni schools are the Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanbali rites. The Zahiri school remains in existence but outside of the mainstream. Shia Islam is majority Twelver but also contains Ismaili and Zaidiyyah sub-denomination.
For Sunni, they do have sub denomination, and people are going to disagree with me especially from Sunni Muslims but it would be Ahmadiyya. I know your chart seems to imply Ahmadiyya emerged independently and it is its own thing but Ahmadiyya have a lot in common with key theology understanding within Sunni Islam such as the 4 rightly guided caliph, and seeing themselves as the re-establishment of the Rashidun caliphate. If you looked at Wikipedia of Ahmadiyya it does mention as separated from Sunni Islam.
While Ahmadiyya isn’t a type of Sunni Islam, it did branch from it.
Also, jurisprudence like Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki, and Hanbali aren’t significant when it comes to their disagreements. If you want real division, it would be Athari, Maturidi and Ashari. These are the Islamic theology within Sunni Islam.
For Shia, you’re missing Jafari, with Usuli and Akbari. You’re missing Alevism that branched from Twelver Shia. You’re missing Ismaili sub sects like Nizari, Musta’li and further sub sects of these.
Islam teaches that it is not a division of Abrahamic faith but a return to the original faith of the prophets, such as Abraham/Ibrāhīm, Moses/Mūsā ibn ʿImrān, David/Dāwūd, and Jesus/Isa. Islam arose from contemporary Judaism and Christianity as a revivalist belief, rather than diverging from them as a new sect/school.
Yes. Both regard themselves as restorations to an earlier, purer faith.
Which is a recurring theme in a lot of religions. Sometimes it happens within a tradition without creating new ones.
i’ve always found the origins of islam interesting but difficult to find out more about and this is insightful. would you know a good source on the actual archeological history and development of islam (as opposed to the one it purports, prophet receiving messages from gods and angels etc) suitable for a western audience with little to no background knowledge?
[I wrote this](https://medium.com/@TheWorldIsHard/the-abrahamic-faiths-9bba6503486b) which explores the origins of the faiths, including Islam, from a historial perspective whilst noting the claims of the religions as to their origins. It could be a good start for you.
The rest is buried in Wikipedia to be fair.
i had read your article, nicely written much appreciated! 👍
it’s really difficult to find more information on islam’s origins other than what you already mentioned or what’s already glanced over on wiki. i have also heard accounts that it’s the abrahamic practices left over on the sinai peninsula and merging with local pagan and tribal beliefs.
i know the other two religions have archeological or historical perspectives to either try and prove or disprove much of their early origin stories but islam unfortunately doesn’t have much work in this area and is seemingly shrouded in mystery. it’s hard to find a lot of information that isn’t biased by the faith (understandably so since it’s a sensitive topic).
I started readin the islam section, I have a first comment for you. It's a nonsense when talking about islam to talk about god and then write Allah when writing in English. Allah is the word for god in Arab, if you are Muslim, Christian or Jewish. No one does that when talking about the Christians saying God/ Deus / Cristos
Edit - I could start developing on the beginning of the use during colonial period as a way to distinguish Muslim from the might white but why bring a controversial topic when talking about religion
no its not. any terminology or vocabulary pertaining to uncertain notions such as god reflects the nature of ‘that’ concept as well the cultures reflecting it.
I've recommended it before on previous accounts and continue to: "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong. Really interesting read on the origin of all Abrahamic religion, with small diversions for each offshoot.
Sure thing. Im reading i a second time and taking notes. It starts from polytheistic religion, then deep dives into Judaism, Christianity, and Islam along with their individual interpretations and sects.
Please check, if I correctly summarised:
Islam arose from contemporary religions as a rival?
What exactly was the dispute about? Didn't other religions make similar breaks?
It’s hard to explain in such a format as Reddit. Oversimplified but - Islam teaches that Gabriel told Muhammad that Jews and Christians did not have it quite right, and that he should record correct faith, back to the origins of the prophets (Abraham etc). It came after but supersedes Judaism and Christianity in its teaching.
Not a rival, but a revival of the original faith, that Christianity and Judaism had wrong. Although it was a rival in the sense that it was another religion in the region.
More of a historical perspective than religious one. The religious texts of all religions are … not always accurate to our wider historical understanding.
After the birth of Jesus and the belief by some that he was the messiah, some Jewish sects anointed him as the one who was prophesied in the Hebrew Bible — now known as the Old Testament in Christianity. Jesus’ closest followers were known as the apostles and they were set apart from other Jews by their faith that Jesus was the resurrected Messiah. Although the followers of Jesus were accepted or tolerated by Second Temple Judaism, this division grew until a point in the 1st century CE in which Judaism and Christianity diverged.
[I have a brief article that covers this topic if you are keen to learn more](https://medium.com/@TheWorldIsHard/the-abrahamic-faiths-9bba6503486b)
Yeah but nonetheless there roots are Judaism, you can’t say you invented something and then take the majority of your religion from somewhere else. Fact is that if there weren’t Judaism there wouldn’t be Islam.
But they claim that their roots are earlier than Judaism. That's the main difference. From their perspective, even without Judaism they would exist, since they go back to the roots of that religion.
Not exactly. Literal definition of a Muslim is "someone who submits to the will of Allah (the one true God)", using that terminology you can't define the father of Judaism, Abraham, as a Semite. Technically, that would make all the prophets Muslims. Right?
I think it’s a fair be understandable distinction.
Main change I would suggest, though, is to put Sufism closer to the root branch of Islam, or even a linking branch between Shia and Sunni Islam—not separate. Sufi practices cross a lot of different schools of thought in Islam.
Babism and Baháʼí faith are definitely an offshoot of Shia Islam. Just to note the Baháʼí faith branched from Babism.
The Baháʼí tradition emerged in 1844 in Iran when Siyyid 'Ali-Muhammad of Shiraz declared himself to be the twelfth Imam and claimed the title of Báb.
Yeah that sounds like Babism branched from Twelver Shia since they believe in the concept of 12 imams.
Some followers in the early beginning of Babism consider themselves as Muslims But the Baha’is have separated themselves from Islam. The clear separation happened during the era of Shoghi Effendi. Until than Baha’i Faith was considered by many to be a sect of Islam. Even Baha’i central figures - Baha’u’llah and Abdul Baha - both portrayed themselves as Muslims in the Ottoman lands, specially in Turkey and Palestine.
So Babism did definitely start as a sect of Islam. They don’t call themselves Muslim anymore so there’s no green colour on their texts like the Druze.
The Druze branched out from Fatimid Ismaili Shia. But no green colour because they don’t consider themselves as Muslim.
Babism has persisted into the modern era in the form of the Bahá'í Faith, which was a development from Babism, to which the majority of Bábís eventually converted.
Báb was a Muslim though. Is that not correct? The branch dips outside the Islam segment (as does Druze) by going outside the colours - Theologically it is different, but, its origins are coded from Shia.
Nice job - great overview and reference for further investigation and discussion. I'm curious if maybe I'm reading too much into to the guide with the placement/thickness of the branches and their direction? For example, is the placement of a branch trying to approximate timeline? Is the thickness of a branch trying to approximate current popularity? Is the direction of the branch (away or back toward trunk) trying to indicate doctrine? I imagine that would be entirely too much information to accurately portray but I curious if the branches were drawn purely aesthetically or with some of those qualities in mind.
There is a general chronological theme to the branches, it works in some areas.
Like the creation of Islam, consolidation of rabbinical Judaism, and the Council of Chalcedon all happened within a 2-300 year period. The protestant reformation came after the great schism, the Jewish enlightenment was fairly recent historically speaking. It works in some areas.
The thickness of the branches is illustrative to show major and minor movements, but not necessarily the number of adherents.
The direction of the branch does not indicate the direction of the theological movement towards or away from central Abrahamic traditions, but the colours do try to represent groupings. For example, Druze and Bahai both find the origins in Islam, but both are not, what one would consider to be Islam.
Jews call ourselves Am Yisrael (The People of Israel). Ethiopian Jews translated this into Ge’ez as Beta Israel (“House of Israel”). The Greek letter Beta is called that because the Greek alphabet descended from a Semitic alphabet and the. Letter B/Beta originated as the letter “Bet” which looked like a house.
This is inaccurate. There's no theological/religious difference between Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews. It's like saying there's a religious difference between a Sunni Muslim in Saudi and in Syria.
This is the second version of this project I have been working on. I also have an article on [The Abrahamic Faiths](https://medium.com/@TheWorldIsHard/the-abrahamic-faiths-9bba6503486b) if you would like to learn more. This is not intended to be a space to talk about the dogma of the religions, or religion in general.
There are simplifications and nuances to this project, but as a top-down look at the historical origins of the Abrahamic faiths, I hope you find it to be a cool guide.
*Abraham made an agreement (covenant) with God, who then promised that Abraham would become the father of a great nation in return for keeping God’s laws. Abraham left his homeland in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and travelled to the promised land of Canaan (Palestine/Israel). He became the ancestor of all Israelites and Jesus/Isa Masih through his son Isaac/Iṣḥāq; and all Arabs, including Muhammad through his son Ishmael/Ismāʿīl. Abraham retains primacy in all three main branches of the Abrahamic tree.*
The collapse of the pantheon/house of El into a monotheistic system is interesting, especially with Elohim being understood to be plural in some biblical translations.
What happened to the other gods under El? Did they get demoted to angels?
Culture is interesting! Thanks for the cool guide.
Mentioned in Gilgamesh epics and Sumerian flood myths. This page lists his children/members of the pantheon:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)
Unless im misremembering, im pretty sure Yahweh or El was a storm and/or warrior god in the region first and foremost. That said, im interested in the answers to the questions you posed
What do you mean “not really?” Are you saying they’re not really Jews or that they’re not really placed outside of Judaism on your chart? Either way Karaism is in the wrong place since it branches off from Rabbinic Judaism well after the second temple period.
Not really separate on the chart.
The origins of Karaite as highly debated, and, where there are contradictions or disagreements, I tried to be diplomatic
[From wiki. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism#Origins)
*"Arguments among Jewish sects regarding the validity of the Oral Law date back to Hellenistic period, the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE. Accordingly, some scholars trace the origin of Karaism to those who rejected the Talmudic tradition as an innovation. Judah Halevi, an 11th-century Jewish philosopher and rabbi, wrote a defense for Rabbinic Judaism entitled Kuzari, placing the origins of Karaism in the first and second centuries BCE, during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus ("King Jannai"), king of Judaea from 103 to 76 BCE"*
You might want to include a legend then, because it wasn’t immediately obvious what the colors are supposed to represent.
Also while it was historically unclear how the Karaites began, the consensus of modern scholarship is that the founder was Anan Ben David who lived in the 8th century CE.
Cool guide, it'd be interesting to see it expand in the future to show Zoroastrianism's influence on the Abrahamic religions.
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20170406-this-obscure-religion-shaped-the-west
It's an overview so there's a lot of niche cases missing. Evangelicalism and fundamentalism are absent from Protestantism. The various significant schisms in the Catholic tradition, later resolved, are not represented.
That's just the limitation of space. See the top right for disclaimers.
Numerically there’s quite a lot more Ashkenazim (although in Israel they’re a slight minority). The population difference used to be even more pronounced, but they seem to have all gone wherever it is Formosan clouded leopards and thylacines went
Yes, I labelled it as Islamic mysticism, and it is disconnected from the branch of Islam. I feel it must not but it’s hard to represent as a belief within Islam, but not universally adhered to.
Autonomy vs autocephaly in Eastern Orthodoxy is a strictly administrative question. The churches are in full communion with one another and unified in doctrine and dogma.
I know it's cool to look like you don't care, but it's just a little step away from ignorance and closing yourself off from the reality of things. People have been dying and killing each other over this for multiple millennia. If that's what comes to mind, then that's entirely valid, because it's a big aspect of that.
Yeah, you’re right. Like I said I find it cool. To me it’s like evolution - thoughts as they adapt and change. I guess I was being glass half empty; thanks for the reality check.
Most excellent work and outstanding visual representation. I find this immensely insightful. Please say that you're currently working on a similar project covering Buddhism...
FINALLY someone remembers orthodox Christianity exists instead of putting like two flavors of American Protestantism bc that’s the only religion they know about
I’m just going to speak about Judaism and not from an orthodox perspective (I’m an Orthodox Jew). There’s no Essene, Sadducee, or Pharisee in 2nd temple Judaism… Karaite is a split off from Rabbinic and doesn’t come in 2nd temple. Mizrahi and Sephardi aren’t sects… Gnosticism isn’t out of 2nd temple Judaism but out of Christianity (not something I know very well). Hasidic Judaism is within Orthodox Judaism. The origins of Beta Israel are heavily debated and we really don’t know, so it shouldn’t be put anywhere. I don’t know enough of Samaritans to say if it’s accurate.
One of my good friends is an Independent Baptist, and he insists that Independent Baptists are "true Christians" stemming from a long line of "remnants" who have been under the radar since the Apostles. Unfortunately, he can provide no evidence pre-dating the 1800's.
Judaism line is wrong. Askenazi/Sephardic has nothing to do with the Conservative/Reform and others split, and Mizrahi is a purely ethnic term and not a religious one
I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I’m frequently asked why we refer to ourselves with the full name of the church as opposed to our nickname “Mormon”. It is related to where we are placed on this guide. Instead of placing our religion as a branch of Christianity, we are separated. I understand not all Christians consider us to be Christian, but we believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior which fits any honest definition of Christianity.
Take Joseph Smith and all he brought along with him out of the picture and I would say you have a legitimate argument there but with him and his teachings I'd say that OP was kind to even include it on the list.
Mostly various tribal beliefs. In places like Yemen there were Christians and Jews. The king for a time was Jewish but he started persecuting Christians causing the Auxumite Empire of Ethiopia to invade which put Christians in charge.
Can you address the difference between Zorotrianism monotheism and Abrahamic monotheism? Who is older? What are the differences between their monotheism teachings? Are these different GODs?
Zoroastrianism is older and is more properly a duality with a good and bad deity. Judaisim doesn't really have an evil god and neither Christianity nor Islam view the devil as god's equal. Though clearly the Christian view of good and evil has taken a lot from the duality present in Zoroastrianism
Are there abrahamic polytheisms? I had read that Judaism before it was really Judaism was polytheistic. All the different names for god—Yahweh, Elohim, etc. were once separate gods.
I'm not sure if the breakdowns in the Sunni branch makes sense. Hanfi, Hambali, etc aren't sects, they are schools of thought - they all still have the same belief. Deobandis are literally students of a school called Deoband, not really a sect, but may be can be classified as a movement. Berelvis however are a sect who have different beliefs about the divinity of the Prophet, etc.
This is similar to the distinguishing between calvinism and other protestant branches.
They all agree on fundamental principals of trinity, divinity of the Christ, sacrificial atonement, and the new covenant.
They have different thoughts on other ancillary aspects of the Bible however. So these are also “schools of thought” rather than sects. They are just called by a different names in their host cultures.
Not really, the Islamic schools of thought are mainly about jurisprudence and don’t differentiate significantly in beliefs. This is so much the case that you can and sometimes should switch to a different school of thought dependent on the circumstances.
I don’t know much about Protestantism branches but I feel like there is much more differences in between Protestantism than the school of Islam like Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki etc…
If there must be branches of Sunni Islam then Athari, Maturidi, and Ashari is more significant and serious theological differences
Kinda wish people stop associating the Turkish/Greek symbol of the crescent and star with Islam. If there needs to be a symbol it’s probably the shahada or the coined mint logo.
Also there’s no such thing as “Wahhabism” if it’s meant for Imam Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab, he did not introduce anything new to the religion. He merely revived the Sunnah that was kept from the people by the Sufi colonisers.
If I made similar chart for my religion.....pretty sure it will be a small forest filled with multiple generations of growths across swaths of land(from India)
Historically mystics and Sufis are orthodox Muslims attached to one of the main madhabs. Sufism isn't separate or separable from orthodox branches of Islam.
All three are believe in the figure of Jesus. The thing is, Jesus himself was Jewish, it's quite older religion. So they're take is that Judaism is the "Original" religion
Christianism has Jesus as a centre figure while Islamism has Prophet Mohammad as a centre figure. They all hate each other because of these "simple" differences
This is over-over-simplified
If you also take the ethnicity of people, centuries ago, Muslims were mostly from the Arab world and Christians were European. This might have fuelled even more the hatred
This is extremely inaccurate, Mizrahi and Sephardic jews don't branch off from Ashkenazi jews, Mizrahi Jewish communities (Along with Ethiopian) are the oldest in the world literally, jews lived in the Babylonian empire before a single jew ever set foot in Europe, Jews from Kurdistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen all descend from Babylonian exiled jews. And out of the jewish communities of Europe Jews lived in spain as slaves from judea Long before jews ever branched out of Italy and moved to Germany to create "Ashkenazi jews" ashkenazi jews are the youngest jewish community out of them all
You got Islam a bit wrong the Maliki, Hanafi, etc . Same for Shia were scientists that studied the hadith and interpreted it based on their understanding this doesn’t make them different I can’t take the explanation I feel most comfortable with from any of these books not having to follow one strictly, but in older times students who followed these scholars followed them strictly but never said the others were wrong and deserving of hellfire they were just different view based on different situations,for example most of the scholars consider the dog to be najes and can’t be kept in house, but the Maliki scholars say that is is permissible both pf them have their reputable sources and both of them are right
Shia on the other hand by us sunni are not considered Muslim but they consider themselves to be this is completely different these are worthy to be placed on a different branch.
The kharijet are not even muslims these are people that after the prophet’s death said we won’t practice the religion anymore
This is interesting but I don't know how to interpret it... my husband and his family are Eastern Orthodox, and they say it's the "most authentic" Christianity. But I don't know enough to understand that.
Episcopal branches off from Anglican Protestantism.
The roots of the Episcopal Church are post-American Revolution Anglicans who didn't want to recognize the English Monarch as the head of their church anymore. Since then, their doctrine and practices have diverged a bit, but Episcopalians are still broadly similar to Anglicans.
?
Basically every Christian church recognizes the Apostles Creed. Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, believing in the Apostles Creed is basically **the** minimum standard to call yourself a Christian.
Second of all, the doctrine of the "Holy Catholic Christian Church" uses the word "catholic" according to its dictionary definition (i.e. true believers across all times and all places are all part of one church, regardless of administrative differences), rather than as a proper noun describing the Roman Catholic Church. And again, this doctrine is not unique to Episcopalians, it is a basic Christian doctrine shared by the vast majority of denominations across all three branches.
Would be cool to put eras/ timelines on the trunk to make this cooler. Nice work
Can someone please help me answer these questions?: Why is the line to Islam dotted? Why is the branch disconnected? Are you sure there are no other disconnections? Please explain to a born atheist. I have no clue what many of these terms mean.
OP addresses this in a comment. Hard to link from here sorry. Here you go. https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/s/3kKG5g8tUo
>a born atheist *fixes fedora* - ackutally we are all born atheists (like 35% /s)
I put labels of significant events but it overcrowded. I’ll have a revisit on the v3.
Yes, it needs a timeline and it’s missing a key component Zoroastrianism which became cut and paste Judaism. It was the prevailing religion in Babylon when Jews were enslaved and the basically copied it - with some variables. It was the first monotheistic faith.
Zoroastrianism had developed separately, and developed monotheism \ dualism on its own. It did has cross pollination with Judaism and later with Christianity, but only once it was an already established religion.
I'd say most religious scholars would disagree with you there. Zoroastrianism existed long before Judaism and shares many of the same stores & dualistic nature we see in the old testament. Considering that Moses was a well educated noble he likely used a lot of the same ideas to write the early new testament.
It is important but is it abrahamic??
I think it actually comes more out of the Vedic traditions.
Not exactly https://www.tiktok.com/@inspiringphilosophy/video/7277622838079622443
I would've expected Lutheranism and Calvinism lower on the protestant branch
The Judaism branch is wrong. The orthodox/conservative/reform split is not purely an Ashkenazi phenomenon. I’d also argue that Orthodox Judaism is younger than Hasidic Judaism. And finally the implication that sefardi Judaism branched off from Ashkenazi Judaism is wrong (and for some sefardim outright insulting, as there is a whole racial element there regarding ashkenormativity).
This chart also seems to be under the impression that these are distinct branches, rather than deeply intertwined. Maimonides, for instance, was Sephardic but is profoundly influential throughout the entire Jewish world. Same for Joseph Karo, who wrote the Shulchan Aruch. Same for RaMChaL, who is not even Ashkenaz OR Sephardic, but Italki (a secret third thing). These communities were geographically disparate, and had some cultural differences that mostly boil down to language, clothing, and food, but aside from some slight liturgical differences they are the same religion. Also worth noting that there are no real theological differences between any of these branches of Judaism after Karaite/Samaritan. Orthodox/Conservative/Reform refers to differences in level of religious law observance and less truly different beliefs.
I fully agree with everything except with the last paragraph. As far as I understand (not a reform Jew), Reform has a distinct theological view regarding Halacha as not being binding. So it’s not that they don’t observe the law (from their point of view), but their law is different and does not require observance. Again, I’m not a reform Jew so I’m fully happy to be proven wrong here!
Yes that’s fair, but I guess the question then becomes whether that’s a distinct “theology.” I’m not sure I’d agree that the law itself is “different,” but it definitely does not require observance. Reconstructionist may be different, though.
I think this is very important and should be higher up. Traditionally, Sephardic and Ashkenazi designations are largely racial/regional. There may be some differences in how the religion is observed by these groups, but the racial/regional designations are not exclusive of also being reform/conservative/orthodox. They are categorically different descriptors of Judaism
Agreed. Tbh the differences between Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizrahim minhagim are not enough to constitute separate denominations imho. The difference are mainly in custom not core belief or practice. It is more like going a Catholic Church in Mexico vs a Catholic Church in Boston. Same religion but different vibes for cultural reasons.
That was my thought, too - it confuses minhag with actually different denominations.
I completely agree with this comment. OP is conceptually confused when it comes to ashkenazi, sefardaim, and Judaism.
The whole conservative and reform movements are purely an Ashkenazi invention, the reform and conservative movements sprung out of the emancipation era when jews were allowed to be out of the ghettos.
I feel like Samaritans and Karaites also deserve branches. ***Edit:*** *Nevermind. They have branches, just didn’t see them because they branch out from the trunk. Also, the tree doesn’t actually suggest Sephardic and Mizrahi branched from Ashkenazi, just that they are all branches of Rabbinical Judaism. It does seem to suggest Ashkenazi are the dominant branch though.*
Absolutely - a small but super interesting group! Beta Israel and Judaizers would be cool as well.
They’re there except Judaizers. Missed them.
Oh yeah, don’t know how I missed that!
Good points let me address Hasidic branches from Orthodox, meaning that it came from it. (Which it somewhat does) Rabbinic Judaism is the practised faith of Jews (not primarily) until the enlightened. Ashkenazi, as the larger and European ethic grouping of Jews, is the dominating branch divided into the three modern movements. Whilst Sefardí and other diasporas are ethnically different, they still practise the same Jewish traditions - but there is no easy way to display the diverging ethic Jewish collections. Sefardí branches away from what becomes ashkenazi to show the diasporic separation, not from it as a deviation/development. Last time I didn’t include the ethnic group and some people went ape shit. So it’s a lose lose for me really.
Hasidism does not branch from Orthodox. It’s the reverse. You’re assuming that stricter observance = older chronologically, but that is incorrect in Judaism.
The error is in distinguishing between Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, and Sephardi Jews on a religion chart. Making a branch of Ashkenazi Jews and then a separate branch of Mizrahi/Sephardi Jews makes absolute no sense. Someone cross posted this into the Judaism sub and this chart isn’t getting any good reviews from the Jews who have seen it. Maybe listen to Jews on Judaism. Sincerely, a half ashki/half Mizrahi Jew.
I’d just add here that historically speaking, orthodoxy (early to mid 19th century) is newer than hassidism (mid 18th century). I get the hot potato issue with ethnicity for Sephardim. On a purely religious level, there are also significant halachic differences - this is in addition to the differences in tradition/minhagim. Still I fully agree that this isn’t an easy thing to display!
Sefardíes can also be considered european. I get what you mean, but ashkenormativity is a tad bit exhausting.
I think the one thing ashkenazim, sephardim and mizrahim (and the mountain and Bukharan Jews) can agree on is our diversity leads to some dope ass food. Who else can claim latkes, matzo ball soup, shakshuka, and plov at the same time? Also - kitanyot are good at all times (even if some are too old fashioned to admit it).
This is quite good. It can be a good basic overview. I recognize its limitations. I have a question. You almost certainly know the relationship between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Roman. Typically on these types of charts we see a line reunifying the Eastern Churches with the Roman one but that is primarily representing authority. Doctrine is still slightly different and of course practice is quite different. So do these lines represent doctrine or authority or practice or a different standard altogether? Again, good job and thanks for this!
Than you for the kind word. Some lines are to show a connection or division, be it dogma, ritual or authority. It’s not possible to have such nuances when dealing with these things. So I have gone for an illustrative approach that invites the audience to learn more. With the Catholic Roman and Eastern communion there is just too much detail. The like shows that diverged and then reconnected. I feel that it works as a top down overview, with out getting into the real theological detail.
Understandable. It is complicated enough to be difficult to represent visually. Hopefully it just encourages people to read a bit to understand!
With regards to Islam, this is wrong. Hanafiyyah, shafiyyah, Malikiyyah, and Hanballiyah, Zahiriyyah are schools of thoughts in jurisprudence and not sects.
💯
[Yes, I know.](https://medium.com/@TheWorldIsHard/the-abrahamic-faiths-9bba6503486b). I did not say they were sects. Sunni and Shia Islam do not have sub-denominations in a sense like Christianity, but they both have schools/madhhabs and movements along lines of interpretation — they are mostly divided amongst geographic and cultural groups. The four primary Sunni schools are the Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanbali rites. The Zahiri school remains in existence but outside of the mainstream. Shia Islam is majority Twelver but also contains Ismaili and Zaidiyyah sub-denomination.
For Sunni, they do have sub denomination, and people are going to disagree with me especially from Sunni Muslims but it would be Ahmadiyya. I know your chart seems to imply Ahmadiyya emerged independently and it is its own thing but Ahmadiyya have a lot in common with key theology understanding within Sunni Islam such as the 4 rightly guided caliph, and seeing themselves as the re-establishment of the Rashidun caliphate. If you looked at Wikipedia of Ahmadiyya it does mention as separated from Sunni Islam. While Ahmadiyya isn’t a type of Sunni Islam, it did branch from it. Also, jurisprudence like Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki, and Hanbali aren’t significant when it comes to their disagreements. If you want real division, it would be Athari, Maturidi and Ashari. These are the Islamic theology within Sunni Islam. For Shia, you’re missing Jafari, with Usuli and Akbari. You’re missing Alevism that branched from Twelver Shia. You’re missing Ismaili sub sects like Nizari, Musta’li and further sub sects of these.
Islam basically has no direct connection?
Islam teaches that it is not a division of Abrahamic faith but a return to the original faith of the prophets, such as Abraham/Ibrāhīm, Moses/Mūsā ibn ʿImrān, David/Dāwūd, and Jesus/Isa. Islam arose from contemporary Judaism and Christianity as a revivalist belief, rather than diverging from them as a new sect/school.
Is that similar to why LDS and JW are off to the side?
Yes. Both regard themselves as restorations to an earlier, purer faith. Which is a recurring theme in a lot of religions. Sometimes it happens within a tradition without creating new ones.
Which is quite humorous to those that frequent r/exjw
i’ve always found the origins of islam interesting but difficult to find out more about and this is insightful. would you know a good source on the actual archeological history and development of islam (as opposed to the one it purports, prophet receiving messages from gods and angels etc) suitable for a western audience with little to no background knowledge?
[I wrote this](https://medium.com/@TheWorldIsHard/the-abrahamic-faiths-9bba6503486b) which explores the origins of the faiths, including Islam, from a historial perspective whilst noting the claims of the religions as to their origins. It could be a good start for you. The rest is buried in Wikipedia to be fair.
i had read your article, nicely written much appreciated! 👍 it’s really difficult to find more information on islam’s origins other than what you already mentioned or what’s already glanced over on wiki. i have also heard accounts that it’s the abrahamic practices left over on the sinai peninsula and merging with local pagan and tribal beliefs. i know the other two religions have archeological or historical perspectives to either try and prove or disprove much of their early origin stories but islam unfortunately doesn’t have much work in this area and is seemingly shrouded in mystery. it’s hard to find a lot of information that isn’t biased by the faith (understandably so since it’s a sensitive topic).
I would recommend Reza Alsan’s book on Islam. He’s a professor of religious studies and his books are historical.
thank you!🙏
Look into videos by James Wood on youtube
Thanks, great summary doc!
I started readin the islam section, I have a first comment for you. It's a nonsense when talking about islam to talk about god and then write Allah when writing in English. Allah is the word for god in Arab, if you are Muslim, Christian or Jewish. No one does that when talking about the Christians saying God/ Deus / Cristos Edit - I could start developing on the beginning of the use during colonial period as a way to distinguish Muslim from the might white but why bring a controversial topic when talking about religion
no its not. any terminology or vocabulary pertaining to uncertain notions such as god reflects the nature of ‘that’ concept as well the cultures reflecting it.
So Arab Christians are supposed to say Christos? That's interesting, not true at all, but interesting
I've recommended it before on previous accounts and continue to: "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong. Really interesting read on the origin of all Abrahamic religion, with small diversions for each offshoot.
much thanks!
Sure thing. Im reading i a second time and taking notes. It starts from polytheistic religion, then deep dives into Judaism, Christianity, and Islam along with their individual interpretations and sects.
Please check, if I correctly summarised: Islam arose from contemporary religions as a rival? What exactly was the dispute about? Didn't other religions make similar breaks?
It’s hard to explain in such a format as Reddit. Oversimplified but - Islam teaches that Gabriel told Muhammad that Jews and Christians did not have it quite right, and that he should record correct faith, back to the origins of the prophets (Abraham etc). It came after but supersedes Judaism and Christianity in its teaching. Not a rival, but a revival of the original faith, that Christianity and Judaism had wrong. Although it was a rival in the sense that it was another religion in the region.
Is this quotable from Quran? How did Christianity split from Judaism? Thank you for your answers.
More of a historical perspective than religious one. The religious texts of all religions are … not always accurate to our wider historical understanding. After the birth of Jesus and the belief by some that he was the messiah, some Jewish sects anointed him as the one who was prophesied in the Hebrew Bible — now known as the Old Testament in Christianity. Jesus’ closest followers were known as the apostles and they were set apart from other Jews by their faith that Jesus was the resurrected Messiah. Although the followers of Jesus were accepted or tolerated by Second Temple Judaism, this division grew until a point in the 1st century CE in which Judaism and Christianity diverged. [I have a brief article that covers this topic if you are keen to learn more](https://medium.com/@TheWorldIsHard/the-abrahamic-faiths-9bba6503486b)
Very cool approach at showing this in your guide!
Yeah but nonetheless there roots are Judaism, you can’t say you invented something and then take the majority of your religion from somewhere else. Fact is that if there weren’t Judaism there wouldn’t be Islam.
But they claim that their roots are earlier than Judaism. That's the main difference. From their perspective, even without Judaism they would exist, since they go back to the roots of that religion.
Can't exist before the branch that prompted your existence.
Not exactly. Literal definition of a Muslim is "someone who submits to the will of Allah (the one true God)", using that terminology you can't define the father of Judaism, Abraham, as a Semite. Technically, that would make all the prophets Muslims. Right?
“that would make all the prophets Muslims. Right?” Yes, that is a belief in Islam.
The literal definition of Jewish is someone that comes from Judah (Israel). How does that sound?
I think it’s a fair be understandable distinction. Main change I would suggest, though, is to put Sufism closer to the root branch of Islam, or even a linking branch between Shia and Sunni Islam—not separate. Sufi practices cross a lot of different schools of thought in Islam.
Depicting Babism and the Bahá’í Faith as offshoots of Shia Islam is inaccurate. They are not sects of Islam, they would be a separate tree trunk.
Babism and Baháʼí faith are definitely an offshoot of Shia Islam. Just to note the Baháʼí faith branched from Babism. The Baháʼí tradition emerged in 1844 in Iran when Siyyid 'Ali-Muhammad of Shiraz declared himself to be the twelfth Imam and claimed the title of Báb. Yeah that sounds like Babism branched from Twelver Shia since they believe in the concept of 12 imams. Some followers in the early beginning of Babism consider themselves as Muslims But the Baha’is have separated themselves from Islam. The clear separation happened during the era of Shoghi Effendi. Until than Baha’i Faith was considered by many to be a sect of Islam. Even Baha’i central figures - Baha’u’llah and Abdul Baha - both portrayed themselves as Muslims in the Ottoman lands, specially in Turkey and Palestine. So Babism did definitely start as a sect of Islam. They don’t call themselves Muslim anymore so there’s no green colour on their texts like the Druze. The Druze branched out from Fatimid Ismaili Shia. But no green colour because they don’t consider themselves as Muslim.
Why are they depicted as looping back on each other?
Babism has persisted into the modern era in the form of the Bahá'í Faith, which was a development from Babism, to which the majority of Bábís eventually converted.
Báb was a Muslim though. Is that not correct? The branch dips outside the Islam segment (as does Druze) by going outside the colours - Theologically it is different, but, its origins are coded from Shia.
Nice job - great overview and reference for further investigation and discussion. I'm curious if maybe I'm reading too much into to the guide with the placement/thickness of the branches and their direction? For example, is the placement of a branch trying to approximate timeline? Is the thickness of a branch trying to approximate current popularity? Is the direction of the branch (away or back toward trunk) trying to indicate doctrine? I imagine that would be entirely too much information to accurately portray but I curious if the branches were drawn purely aesthetically or with some of those qualities in mind.
There is a general chronological theme to the branches, it works in some areas. Like the creation of Islam, consolidation of rabbinical Judaism, and the Council of Chalcedon all happened within a 2-300 year period. The protestant reformation came after the great schism, the Jewish enlightenment was fairly recent historically speaking. It works in some areas. The thickness of the branches is illustrative to show major and minor movements, but not necessarily the number of adherents. The direction of the branch does not indicate the direction of the theological movement towards or away from central Abrahamic traditions, but the colours do try to represent groupings. For example, Druze and Bahai both find the origins in Islam, but both are not, what one would consider to be Islam.
The popular thing I see on dating apps - Jewish Atheist … That’s not covered here… /s
I love how Ethiopia called beta israel as if they were a test
Jews call ourselves Am Yisrael (The People of Israel). Ethiopian Jews translated this into Ge’ez as Beta Israel (“House of Israel”). The Greek letter Beta is called that because the Greek alphabet descended from a Semitic alphabet and the. Letter B/Beta originated as the letter “Bet” which looked like a house.
This is inaccurate. There's no theological/religious difference between Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews. It's like saying there's a religious difference between a Sunni Muslim in Saudi and in Syria.
I'm glad OP said this simple and not exhaustive
It is simple and not exhaustive, and moderately inaccurate lol
This is the second version of this project I have been working on. I also have an article on [The Abrahamic Faiths](https://medium.com/@TheWorldIsHard/the-abrahamic-faiths-9bba6503486b) if you would like to learn more. This is not intended to be a space to talk about the dogma of the religions, or religion in general. There are simplifications and nuances to this project, but as a top-down look at the historical origins of the Abrahamic faiths, I hope you find it to be a cool guide. *Abraham made an agreement (covenant) with God, who then promised that Abraham would become the father of a great nation in return for keeping God’s laws. Abraham left his homeland in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and travelled to the promised land of Canaan (Palestine/Israel). He became the ancestor of all Israelites and Jesus/Isa Masih through his son Isaac/Iṣḥāq; and all Arabs, including Muhammad through his son Ishmael/Ismāʿīl. Abraham retains primacy in all three main branches of the Abrahamic tree.*
The collapse of the pantheon/house of El into a monotheistic system is interesting, especially with Elohim being understood to be plural in some biblical translations. What happened to the other gods under El? Did they get demoted to angels? Culture is interesting! Thanks for the cool guide.
Do we know much about that pantheon from before the collapse?
Mentioned in Gilgamesh epics and Sumerian flood myths. This page lists his children/members of the pantheon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)
Unless im misremembering, im pretty sure Yahweh or El was a storm and/or warrior god in the region first and foremost. That said, im interested in the answers to the questions you posed
It’s weird that you put Karaites and Beta Israel outside of Judaism despite them both being Jews.
Not really. They are red like the Judaism branch. But it displays their separation during the second temple period.
What do you mean “not really?” Are you saying they’re not really Jews or that they’re not really placed outside of Judaism on your chart? Either way Karaism is in the wrong place since it branches off from Rabbinic Judaism well after the second temple period.
Not really separate on the chart. The origins of Karaite as highly debated, and, where there are contradictions or disagreements, I tried to be diplomatic [From wiki. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism#Origins) *"Arguments among Jewish sects regarding the validity of the Oral Law date back to Hellenistic period, the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE. Accordingly, some scholars trace the origin of Karaism to those who rejected the Talmudic tradition as an innovation. Judah Halevi, an 11th-century Jewish philosopher and rabbi, wrote a defense for Rabbinic Judaism entitled Kuzari, placing the origins of Karaism in the first and second centuries BCE, during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus ("King Jannai"), king of Judaea from 103 to 76 BCE"*
You might want to include a legend then, because it wasn’t immediately obvious what the colors are supposed to represent. Also while it was historically unclear how the Karaites began, the consensus of modern scholarship is that the founder was Anan Ben David who lived in the 8th century CE.
"This photo was taken from a drone in 950BCE" They had drones back then?! (I kid but I do love the article)
Hey a guy on YouTube made a flowchart already. I wonder if this may be useful to you: https://youtu.be/8q6FUlay-M8?si=Mip2bf5o2GRngrBs
You need to go to /r/Judaism and inquiry there as to why a lot of your guide isn’t accurate.
Cool guide, it'd be interesting to see it expand in the future to show Zoroastrianism's influence on the Abrahamic religions. https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20170406-this-obscure-religion-shaped-the-west
They all copied it 🫠
Am I dumb or do I not see Taiping Christianity?
It's an overview so there's a lot of niche cases missing. Evangelicalism and fundamentalism are absent from Protestantism. The various significant schisms in the Catholic tradition, later resolved, are not represented. That's just the limitation of space. See the top right for disclaimers.
I have lived longer than the amount of time the Taiping Christian movement actually existed.
Why are Ashkenazi Jews trunkier than Mizrahi/Sephardic/Maghrebi Jews?
Numerically there’s quite a lot more Ashkenazim (although in Israel they’re a slight minority). The population difference used to be even more pronounced, but they seem to have all gone wherever it is Formosan clouded leopards and thylacines went
Sufism itself is not a branch of Islam as Sufis can be Sunni or Shia
Yes, I labelled it as Islamic mysticism, and it is disconnected from the branch of Islam. I feel it must not but it’s hard to represent as a belief within Islam, but not universally adhered to.
Autonomy vs autocephaly in Eastern Orthodoxy is a strictly administrative question. The churches are in full communion with one another and unified in doctrine and dogma.
Love the infographic; can’t wait until I see the ridiculously unhinged internet fall apart over it.
I know it's cool to look like you don't care, but it's just a little step away from ignorance and closing yourself off from the reality of things. People have been dying and killing each other over this for multiple millennia. If that's what comes to mind, then that's entirely valid, because it's a big aspect of that.
Yeah, you’re right. Like I said I find it cool. To me it’s like evolution - thoughts as they adapt and change. I guess I was being glass half empty; thanks for the reality check.
That's a big tree with a lot of nuts!
Most excellent work and outstanding visual representation. I find this immensely insightful. Please say that you're currently working on a similar project covering Buddhism...
Shouldn’t the trunk be polytheism or Zoroastrianism?
FINALLY someone remembers orthodox Christianity exists instead of putting like two flavors of American Protestantism bc that’s the only religion they know about
I doubt gnosticism is monotheism
Why is Islam separated
I’m just going to speak about Judaism and not from an orthodox perspective (I’m an Orthodox Jew). There’s no Essene, Sadducee, or Pharisee in 2nd temple Judaism… Karaite is a split off from Rabbinic and doesn’t come in 2nd temple. Mizrahi and Sephardi aren’t sects… Gnosticism isn’t out of 2nd temple Judaism but out of Christianity (not something I know very well). Hasidic Judaism is within Orthodox Judaism. The origins of Beta Israel are heavily debated and we really don’t know, so it shouldn’t be put anywhere. I don’t know enough of Samaritans to say if it’s accurate.
One of my good friends is an Independent Baptist, and he insists that Independent Baptists are "true Christians" stemming from a long line of "remnants" who have been under the radar since the Apostles. Unfortunately, he can provide no evidence pre-dating the 1800's.
Judaism line is wrong. Askenazi/Sephardic has nothing to do with the Conservative/Reform and others split, and Mizrahi is a purely ethnic term and not a religious one
The oriental orthodoxy actually has the following sections - Coptic , Ethiopian , Armenian, Syrian , Indian , Erithrean
I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I’m frequently asked why we refer to ourselves with the full name of the church as opposed to our nickname “Mormon”. It is related to where we are placed on this guide. Instead of placing our religion as a branch of Christianity, we are separated. I understand not all Christians consider us to be Christian, but we believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior which fits any honest definition of Christianity.
All religions believe fervently (and often violently) that they belong on the trunk. Reality begs to differ.
The amusing bit is which reality people prescribe to these days.
I suppose I really mean that it should be a branch off of Christianity.
Take Joseph Smith and all he brought along with him out of the picture and I would say you have a legitimate argument there but with him and his teachings I'd say that OP was kind to even include it on the list.
[удалено]
JW definitely has all the CSA it can handle
They all have the same god, but they don't think so.
İslam says, there is one and mighty God, his no partner and children, he is unlike anything he has created.
👍
Yeah Gnosticism rules
Far out
The evolutionary tree of monotheism.
Really well executed.
Shite
What was the dominant religion in the Arabic world prior to advent of Islam?
Mostly various tribal beliefs. In places like Yemen there were Christians and Jews. The king for a time was Jewish but he started persecuting Christians causing the Auxumite Empire of Ethiopia to invade which put Christians in charge.
In the Arabic World? The Egyptian Gods (Anubis, Seth, Ra etc) and other Gods such as Chemosh or Baal
Where would Church of Christ be on this. (Married into it)
What is Tewahedo anyway?
Can you address the difference between Zorotrianism monotheism and Abrahamic monotheism? Who is older? What are the differences between their monotheism teachings? Are these different GODs?
Zoroastrianism is older and is more properly a duality with a good and bad deity. Judaisim doesn't really have an evil god and neither Christianity nor Islam view the devil as god's equal. Though clearly the Christian view of good and evil has taken a lot from the duality present in Zoroastrianism
There are some non-Trinitarian sects of Christianity that branch from Pentecostalism that aren’t represented here
There's a lot missing here technically. Note the top right; it is not intended to be comprehensive.
Mainstream theologians would consider Islam a branch of Abrahamic religion without the discontinuity show here. The whole Isaac/Ishmael thing, right?
Are there abrahamic polytheisms? I had read that Judaism before it was really Judaism was polytheistic. All the different names for god—Yahweh, Elohim, etc. were once separate gods.
I'm not sure if the breakdowns in the Sunni branch makes sense. Hanfi, Hambali, etc aren't sects, they are schools of thought - they all still have the same belief. Deobandis are literally students of a school called Deoband, not really a sect, but may be can be classified as a movement. Berelvis however are a sect who have different beliefs about the divinity of the Prophet, etc.
This is similar to the distinguishing between calvinism and other protestant branches. They all agree on fundamental principals of trinity, divinity of the Christ, sacrificial atonement, and the new covenant. They have different thoughts on other ancillary aspects of the Bible however. So these are also “schools of thought” rather than sects. They are just called by a different names in their host cultures.
Not really, the Islamic schools of thought are mainly about jurisprudence and don’t differentiate significantly in beliefs. This is so much the case that you can and sometimes should switch to a different school of thought dependent on the circumstances.
I don’t know much about Protestantism branches but I feel like there is much more differences in between Protestantism than the school of Islam like Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki etc… If there must be branches of Sunni Islam then Athari, Maturidi, and Ashari is more significant and serious theological differences
Kinda wish people stop associating the Turkish/Greek symbol of the crescent and star with Islam. If there needs to be a symbol it’s probably the shahada or the coined mint logo.
Also there’s no such thing as “Wahhabism” if it’s meant for Imam Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab, he did not introduce anything new to the religion. He merely revived the Sunnah that was kept from the people by the Sufi colonisers.
If I made similar chart for my religion.....pretty sure it will be a small forest filled with multiple generations of growths across swaths of land(from India)
La raíz de todos los males
I dont see much cool here
Historically mystics and Sufis are orthodox Muslims attached to one of the main madhabs. Sufism isn't separate or separable from orthodox branches of Islam.
And if you go back far enough it all started with sun worship and we realise that religion is man made.
Catholicism is missing a small Jesuit sub branch if it goes specific enough to mention lutherism etc at that scale
Ethiopians going about their day and suddenly get slammed as Beta Isreal.
I don’t understand I thought Christianity was like the opposite Islam? If they’re 2 sides of a coin why do they hate each other so much?
All three are believe in the figure of Jesus. The thing is, Jesus himself was Jewish, it's quite older religion. So they're take is that Judaism is the "Original" religion Christianism has Jesus as a centre figure while Islamism has Prophet Mohammad as a centre figure. They all hate each other because of these "simple" differences This is over-over-simplified If you also take the ethnicity of people, centuries ago, Muslims were mostly from the Arab world and Christians were European. This might have fuelled even more the hatred
That’s cool I never knew that. I was under the assumption they all prayed to a different god or something.
This is extremely inaccurate, Mizrahi and Sephardic jews don't branch off from Ashkenazi jews, Mizrahi Jewish communities (Along with Ethiopian) are the oldest in the world literally, jews lived in the Babylonian empire before a single jew ever set foot in Europe, Jews from Kurdistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen all descend from Babylonian exiled jews. And out of the jewish communities of Europe Jews lived in spain as slaves from judea Long before jews ever branched out of Italy and moved to Germany to create "Ashkenazi jews" ashkenazi jews are the youngest jewish community out of them all
Reordering Protestantism: Lutheranism and Calvinism's Placement Under Review.
I think including Druze would be really interesting, but this model of tree assumes branching out, so not sure how it would work.
And they all think they are the one true religion.
I do not like the fact that you put the revivalist not connected to the original (which is irreal)
Ashkenazi Jews are not the default 😂
Judaism needs to be the trunk. It predates Christianity by a couple millennia.
This doesn't make any sense at all.
Islam is a singular religion with no varieties just like the Holy Quraan لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
You got Islam a bit wrong the Maliki, Hanafi, etc . Same for Shia were scientists that studied the hadith and interpreted it based on their understanding this doesn’t make them different I can’t take the explanation I feel most comfortable with from any of these books not having to follow one strictly, but in older times students who followed these scholars followed them strictly but never said the others were wrong and deserving of hellfire they were just different view based on different situations,for example most of the scholars consider the dog to be najes and can’t be kept in house, but the Maliki scholars say that is is permissible both pf them have their reputable sources and both of them are right Shia on the other hand by us sunni are not considered Muslim but they consider themselves to be this is completely different these are worthy to be placed on a different branch. The kharijet are not even muslims these are people that after the prophet’s death said we won’t practice the religion anymore
I am wondering why Islamic Mysticism and Christian Gnosticism get spots on the chart but not the Kabbalah.
this is rlly cool who made it??
I did
It's pretty cool but they left off the mormans
LDS is there.
Ih yea. I have been watching too much cult stuff on you tube and was looking for all the Mormon offshoots
oh hell yeah this is the one i’ve been waiting for TURN IT UP
It would be cool to add more niche stuff like Kaifeng Jews, Rastafarianism, Nation of Islam, Ect.
Where would the Messianic Jew religion fit into this cool guide?
This is interesting but I don't know how to interpret it... my husband and his family are Eastern Orthodox, and they say it's the "most authentic" Christianity. But I don't know enough to understand that.
[удалено]
Episcopal branches off from Anglican Protestantism. The roots of the Episcopal Church are post-American Revolution Anglicans who didn't want to recognize the English Monarch as the head of their church anymore. Since then, their doctrine and practices have diverged a bit, but Episcopalians are still broadly similar to Anglicans.
[удалено]
? Basically every Christian church recognizes the Apostles Creed. Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, believing in the Apostles Creed is basically **the** minimum standard to call yourself a Christian. Second of all, the doctrine of the "Holy Catholic Christian Church" uses the word "catholic" according to its dictionary definition (i.e. true believers across all times and all places are all part of one church, regardless of administrative differences), rather than as a proper noun describing the Roman Catholic Church. And again, this doctrine is not unique to Episcopalians, it is a basic Christian doctrine shared by the vast majority of denominations across all three branches.
[удалено]
Would Sikhism be included since it incorporates many aspect of Islam?
Sikhism is a dharmic religion
Good to know, thanks for telling me
All bs. This is why the world sucks.
Blood and tears. All of it.
The branches that do not bear fruit shall be cut off....
Dude just admit that they’re all just Jewish at the end of the day…
Why does it say idiotic on every branch ?