This single image traces the currect theological outlook of both the Abrahamics. Never thought it's this straightforward.

What does this image represent?
1. Jesus is divine is not accepted even till 700 AD completely.
2. Holy Ghost not accepted till 400 AD
With the brute force of Constantine the Wife Boiler, all these attributes were shelved in due time.

From Jesus being a human being - a just another teacher, the religion evolved over centuries to represent a union of three - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The next phase of evolution was - how are the Father and Son related to each other. Some said he is not human. Some said the human and divine are two physical manifestations. Some said both are same but are two distinct beings in the same physical body.

Some went even extreme and said that there is no difference between Son and Father - same body, same nature and same consciousness. A major Monophysite Church Coucil was held by Al-Mundhir III ibn al-Harith, the Ghassanid vassal of Constantinople in 580 and along with it,

a promise that the Monophysites won't be persecuted. But, the anti-Monophysite faction was very strong in the Empire and the esteemed position al Harith held, he was held in a benevolent exile. The Byzantines tried to impose a non-Monophysite on the Ghassinids but al Harith's son

rebelled. When he went to Constantinople for reconciliation, he too was arrested and sent to his father. Now there are two themes here.
1. Prosperity of the lands descended into anarchy
2. Forced suppression of Monophysitism(to be precise, the Miaphytism strain of Monophysitism)

On one side, there is anger in support of a crushed religion. On the other hand, we have the want of a tribal confederacy after Ghassan collapsed with the arrest of father and son. On the third side, their Sassanian equivalents, the Lakhmids were snuffed out by their masters

in 602. Arabia literally had no overlord and was not happy with the religious state of things. And with Miaphysite centres serving as the main trade posts, what would have been the logical successor for Miaphysitism? Islam.

The rigidly monotheist union of Father, Son and Holy Spirit view held by these Monophysite cult of Miaphysites, how different is it from a local flavour of the same - it's Meccan version? In fact, the Ghassanid origins of Islam will settle another tricky problem -

What just happened because of which these desert traders suddenly became the greatest military strategists of the world and conquered half the known world in a matter of years - a feat none of their predecessors were able to achieve?

Even in Islam, we will see a level of evolution - Uthmanic Standardization of Quran, for example. But, the speed of rise and the forced acceptance of their version as being the only true religion at the point of sword makes one accept the Islamic version of the narrative.

It's all about evolution. Moses declared monotheism and even during his lifetime, people rejected it. Slowly, we would see Jewism becoming a polytheistic cult(best example being Elephantine Jews) but courtesy Nebuchandezzar, only the rigidly orthodox and monotheistic Judaism

survived. These religions are of continuous strife. There will have to be a fight for their sustenance. Less than 300 years after their return to Jerusalem, we see Christianity. By 800 AD, Christianity stabilized. By 1000 AD, we had crusades.

By 1500, Crusades failed, Northern Crusades ended and Reconquesta completed. There are no enemies for the church. Within 30 years, we have Protestantism - when there were no external enemies, let's go for a civil war!! Islam was no better either -

Shia-Sunni strife which carries into the modern days. But, Islam had an advantage - territorial expansion. That mollified the internal rifts to some extent. But on the other side, Caliph, unlike the Pope was not just a religious head but the political head as well.

Islam stabilized by 800 AD, Mahmud of Ghazni rebelled by 1000 AD. He didn't want to be a vassal of the Caliph - he wanted to be a king in his own right!! Shia on one side and Sunnis lusting for power from another side - Islam had it's own style of internal strife.

Protestant Wars ended and that was followed by Louis of France's head on the guillotine. Napoleonic Wars ended and along with it the world saw the rise of Communism as an unstoppable force. It's just...the Abrahamic history hinged on just one thing - strife driven evolution.

As what Orson Wells nicely put it, "The Cuckoo Clock!!"