Timeline of World Religions

[Lunar]

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

seems reasonable

[Earth]

edit: Didn't see the delineation at the bottom.

[12th Doctor]

I have often wondered about the origins of Zoroastrianism.  Its emergence seems to strangely coincide with the emergence of Judaism in the region, and all fact clearly supports the notion that the Jewish faith came first.  While monotheism is not entirely unique in the world, it is still a rarity.  I wonder if Zoroastrianism, with its teachings not all that dissimilar from those of the followers of Yahweh (or even later Christians) is, in fact, another (distant) branch of the Jewish faith.

[12th Doctor]

The Jews were not provincial people, by any stretch of the imagination, after all.  They got around.

[jokerman]

I have often wondered about the origins of Zoroastrianism.  Its emergence seems to strangely coincide with the emergence of Judaism in the region, and all fact clearly supports the notion that the Jewish faith came first.  While monotheism is not entirely unique in the world, it is still a rarity.  I wonder if Zoroastrianism, with its teachings not all that dissimilar from those of the followers of Yahweh (or even later Christians) is, in fact, another (distant) branch of the Jewish faith.

I think you would find The Decline of The West by Oswald Spengler, in this instance Chs. XIV & XV "Problems of the Arabian Culture" very enriching.

[Lief 🗽]

Islam should be connected to Judaism (and Christianity, I guess).

Surprising that Hinduism is so young, I thought.

[Хahar 🤔]

The Jews were not provincial people, by any stretch of the imagination, after all.  They got around.

I haven't studied this part of history much, but I've always been under the impression that Jewishness became more and more narrowly defined over time. Is this true?

[12th Doctor]

The Jews were not provincial people, by any stretch of the imagination, after all.  They got around.

I haven't studied this part of history much, but I've always been under the impression that Jewishness became more and more narrowly defined over time. Is this true?

I should revise my statement some, there was always a heavy prejudice against non-Jews seeking to become followers of Yahweh.  What I meant was that the Jews were heavily involved in the trade of the region, and many of them traveled around alot more than what is mentioned in the Bible.  It was a very commercial culture.

[jokerman]

The Jews were not provincial people, by any stretch of the imagination, after all.  They got around.

I haven't studied this part of history much, but I've always been under the impression that Jewishness became more and more narrowly defined over time. Is this true?

I should revise my statement some, there was always a heavy prejudice against non-Jews seeking to become followers of Yahweh.  What I meant was that the Jews were heavily involved in the trade of the region, and many of them traveled around alot more than what is mentioned in the Bible.  It was a very commercial culture.

They had a presence as far as China, in fact.  Indeed, the problem is many in the West confuse our ghettos of secluded Judaism with the historical Jewish spirit, which was often as dynamic as its spiritual contemporaries (i.e. Zoroastrianism, early Christianity, Manicheanism).

[Verily]

Islam should be connected to Judaism (and Christianity, I guess).

Surprising that Hinduism is so young, I thought.

The distinction is drawn between "Hinduism" in its earliest stages and the "more mature" modern faith. That is, there was a religion with many of the same gods as Hinduism much, much earlier than this chart suggests, but it had none of the concepts of divine unity that latter-day Hinduism expresses. This coincided, not without reason, with the appearance of Buddhism and its challenge to "pre-Hinduism" to offer a more coherent message.

[anvi]

I have a few disagreements with the chart.  There's not really any historical evidence that Zoroastrianism, in any recognizable form, was practiced before 600 BCE, but its origin and development were in Persia (Cyrus the Great, who allowed the people to return to Israel, did commission inscriptions to the God of Zoroastrianism, Ahura-Mazda).  Vedic Brahmanism, upon which modern Hinduisim is ritially and textually based, did not predate 2000 BCE, and in fact its earliest written texts date back only to about 1000 BCE.  (The pre-Vedic religions of India, which have no sure connections to Vedic Hinduism, do go back farther than 2000 BCE, however.).  Finally, I don't believe that Judaism is older than 2000 BCE. 

[Scam of God]

I have often wondered about the origins of Zoroastrianism.  Its emergence seems to strangely coincide with the emergence of Judaism in the region, and all fact clearly supports the notion that the Jewish faith came first.  While monotheism is not entirely unique in the world, it is still a rarity.  I wonder if Zoroastrianism, with its teachings not all that dissimilar from those of the followers of Yahweh (or even later Christians) is, in fact, another (distant) branch of the Jewish faith.

To the contrary: the early Christians inherited their dualistic concept of good as against evil from the Zoroastrians. Judaism is remarkable free of any such Manichean concepts; while God may be the ultimate Good in a universal sense in Judaism, there is no evil corollary to him. Everything Christianity is is a plagiarization of a plagiarization.

[12th Doctor]

I have often wondered about the origins of Zoroastrianism.  Its emergence seems to strangely coincide with the emergence of Judaism in the region, and all fact clearly supports the notion that the Jewish faith came first.  While monotheism is not entirely unique in the world, it is still a rarity.  I wonder if Zoroastrianism, with its teachings not all that dissimilar from those of the followers of Yahweh (or even later Christians) is, in fact, another (distant) branch of the Jewish faith.

To the contrary: the early Christians inherited their dualistic concept of good as against evil from the Zoroastrians. Judaism is remarkable free of any such Manichean concepts; while God may be the ultimate Good in a universal sense in Judaism, there is no evil corollary to him. Everything Christianity is is a plagiarization of a plagiarization.

Okay, but that is actually not true.  The Torah and other very early Jewish writings are not dualistic, but by the time of the prophets that had changed.

[The Mikado]

I see they're using an extremely loose definition of "Judaism."  (I wouldn't call the ancient Israelites "Jews," a term that refers to descent from the tribe of Judah)

They have Manicheism going on too long, IMO.

The date of origin for Zoroastrianism is extremely heavily debated, but I'd push it back just a bit from where it seems to be on that chart...or on second thought, maybe that's what the lightly shaded bit means.

I can't help but notice the complete lack of Native American/Australian Aborigine/African faiths.

A Hindu might not be too happy about the chart, but it's pretty much right in that case.  It's just inconsistent with their statement on Judaism.  If you're going to say that Hinduism in its complete form came around in 2XX BC, why wouldn't you say that Judaism came about in its complete form around 5XX BC?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I do wonder where they define Judaism as starting: Abraham (2000 BC), Moses (1200 BC), Solomon (950 BC), etc.  There could be any number of starting points.

[Gustaf]

I have often wondered about the origins of Zoroastrianism.  Its emergence seems to strangely coincide with the emergence of Judaism in the region, and all fact clearly supports the notion that the Jewish faith came first.  While monotheism is not entirely unique in the world, it is still a rarity.  I wonder if Zoroastrianism, with its teachings not all that dissimilar from those of the followers of Yahweh (or even later Christians) is, in fact, another (distant) branch of the Jewish faith.

To the contrary: the early Christians inherited their dualistic concept of good as against evil from the Zoroastrians. Judaism is remarkable free of any such Manichean concepts; while God may be the ultimate Good in a universal sense in Judaism, there is no evil corollary to him. Everything Christianity is is a plagiarization of a plagiarization.

Read up on Job.

Jokerman: wasn't Spengler a half-crazed Nazi-type? I believe I read something to that effect just last week.

[Lunar]

I see they're using an extremely loose definition of "Judaism."  (I wouldn't call the ancient Israelites "Jews," a term that refers to descent from the tribe of Judah)

They have Manicheism going on too long, IMO.

The date of origin for Zoroastrianism is extremely heavily debated, but I'd push it back just a bit from where it seems to be on that chart...or on second thought, maybe that's what the lightly shaded bit means.

I can't help but notice the complete lack of Native American/Australian Aborigine/African faiths.

A Hindu might not be too happy about the chart, but it's pretty much right in that case.  It's just inconsistent with their statement on Judaism.  If you're going to say that Hinduism in its complete form came around in 2XX BC, why wouldn't you say that Judaism came about in its complete form around 5XX BC?

Would there be any universally fair way to construct such an image?

[jokerman]

Jokerman: wasn't Spengler a half-crazed Nazi-type? I believe I read something to that effect just last week.

Not really.  Some of his philosophy was first assimilated by the Nazis in the crudest form, but they rejected the man himself in the end, and Spengler's last book was a polemic against the Nazis.

Spengler, in his morphology of civilization, does describe (and thus for the West, prophecy) a period in which an immense race-feeling rises up in the last stage of civilization to establish formless power over everything, the process he calls Caesarianism.  However, he devotes an extended section to describing his view of race in The Decline of the West, and ridiculues the kind of anthropological or linguistical definitions later used by the Nazis to establish their hierachy of humanity.  Rather, for Spengler, race has little to do with biology and everything to do with the spirit at a core of society.  In this way, there is an American race, decisively forged by events like the Revolutionary and Civil Wars.

[Scam of God]

I have often wondered about the origins of Zoroastrianism.  Its emergence seems to strangely coincide with the emergence of Judaism in the region, and all fact clearly supports the notion that the Jewish faith came first.  While monotheism is not entirely unique in the world, it is still a rarity.  I wonder if Zoroastrianism, with its teachings not all that dissimilar from those of the followers of Yahweh (or even later Christians) is, in fact, another (distant) branch of the Jewish faith.

To the contrary: the early Christians inherited their dualistic concept of good as against evil from the Zoroastrians. Judaism is remarkable free of any such Manichean concepts; while God may be the ultimate Good in a universal sense in Judaism, there is no evil corollary to him. Everything Christianity is is a plagiarization of a plagiarization.

Read up on Job.

Actually read Job. The Satan in the Book of Job was a servant of God, who tested Job as a favor to Him - certainly not the diabolical figure of Christian mythology.