Pope Leo XIV (His Life, Beliefs, and papal ascent)

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Habemus Papam. “We have a pope.” These words were pronounced by Cardinal Dominique Mamberti on May 8th at approximately 7:30 PM, igniting a wave of elation and applause among the thousands gathered in St. Peter’s Square. With the traditional formula, Mamberti announced that the College of Cardinals (an institution formally established in 1059 to advise and elect the bishop of Rome) had reached its decision.

The new pope of the Catholic Church is Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, now Pope Leo XIV: The 266th pontiff in the line of succession and first ever to be born in the United States. As the news rapidly spread across the globe, I was met with the inevitable question: What can we expect from this new pope?

Every papal election marks a moment of historical consequence, not only for the Catholic Church’s 1.3 billion adherents but for global geopolitics, interreligious dialogue, and ethical discourse on a range of urgent social issues. 

A new pope embodies, to some extent, the hopes and anxieties of the cardinals who elected him. But he also carries the burden of expectation from a watching world that increasingly questions the Church’s place in the modern age.

In the days and months ahead, commentators will scrutinize every gesture, homily, and appointment made by Pope Leo XIV. But already, with the choice of name and the tone of his first words, he has begun to shape a papal identity.

In what follows, we’ll look more closely at who Leo XIV is, what the choice of his papal name may signify, and what trajectory he might chart, whether in continuity with his predecessor, Pope Francis, or in a new direction altogether.

From Robert Francis Prevost to Pope Leo XIV: A Short Biography

Robert Francis Prevost was born on September 14, 1955, in Chicago, Illinois, to Louis Marius Prevost, of French and Italian descent, and Mildred Martínez, of Spanish heritage. Raised in the suburb of Dolton, he was immersed in Catholic life from an early age, serving as an altar boy and participating actively in his parish community.

Prevost pursued higher education at Villanova University, an Augustinian institution, earning a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics in 1977. He then entered the Order of Saint Augustine, professing solemn vows in 1981.

He was ordained a priest in 1982 after completing a Master of Divinity at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago. Furthering his theological education, he obtained a Licentiate and Doctorate in Canon Law from the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas in Rome.

His pastoral journey led him to Peru in 1985, where he served as a missionary, seminary professor, and eventually as Bishop of Chiclayo from 2015 to 2023. His deep commitment to the Peruvian people earned him dual citizenship and the affectionate moniker “Latin Yankee.”

In 2001, Prevost was elected Prior General of the Augustinian Order, a position he held until 2013. His leadership extended to the Vatican when Pope Francis appointed him Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops and President of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America in 2023. He was elevated to the College of Cardinals later that year.

Omen Est Nomen: What’s in a Name?

One of the first significant decisions a newly elected pope makes is choosing his pontifical name. This tradition dates back to the year 533, when Mercurius, bearing a distinctly pagan-sounding name, opted for John II to symbolize a new (Christian) identity. Since then, the chosen name serves as an indication of the new pope’s aspirations, values, and the legacy he hopes to emulate.

By choosing the name Leo XIV, Robert F. Prevost deliberately aligns himself with some of the most influential and historically significant figures ever to occupy the Chair of Saint Peter.

The first and perhaps most revered Leo, Leo I (440-461), often known as Leo the Great, profoundly shaped papal authority. He vigorously asserted the Petrine doctrine, the theological cornerstone emphasizing the primacy of the pope as the spiritual successor of the Apostle Peter. 

Leo I’s theological mastery was most clearly displayed in his celebrated document, known simply as the “Tome,” delivered to the Council of Chalcedon (451). In this theological treatise, Leo articulated the doctrine of Christ’s dual nature (fully human and fully divine), establishing a theological standard that resonates to this day. Beyond theology, Leo was also a formidable diplomat.

At a time when the Roman imperial authority was crumbling, he famously confronted Attila the Hun in 452, persuading him to abandon plans to invade and devastate Rome. Leo I also left an extensive literary legacy: Around 150 letters and 96 sermons, unprecedented at the time.

Centuries later, Leo X (1513-1521) presided during a tumultuous epoch for the Catholic Church. Initially favorable toward humanist and Renaissance ideals, Leo X dramatically shaped church history by excommunicating Martin Luther in 1521, inadvertently igniting the Protestant Reformation.

His papacy also offers a striking example of shifting alliances: initially, Leo X warmly supported King Henry VIII of England, honoring him with the title Defender of the Faith after Henry authored a treatise against Luther. Tragically for the unity of Christendom, that very relationship soured dramatically in subsequent years, eventually culminating in England's break with Rome and the establishment of the Anglican Church.

Leo XIII (1878-1903) occupies yet another essential place in papal history. His long pontificate navigated the difficult realities of modernity and political upheaval. Profoundly skeptical of socialism, which he famously denounced as a “murderous pestilence,” Leo XIII was equally wary of democracy, believing it to be incompatible with the divinely ordained order.

Yet he also demonstrated considerable political pragmatism, recognizing that cooperation was possible, even necessary, with secular governments that were not openly hostile to the Church.

Perhaps his most lasting achievement was his landmark encyclical, Rerum Novarum (1891), which addressed the industrial-age challenges of workers' rights, poverty, and economic injustice.

By selecting the name Leo XIV, Pope Robert Francis Prevost signals an awareness of (and perhaps an ambition toward) the extraordinary legacies of his predecessors. Each Pope Leo uniquely navigated crises of theology, diplomacy, and societal change, and each profoundly influenced the course of history. So, what can we expect from Leo XIV? 

Continuity or Change? Pope Leo XIV and the Politics of the Church

One of my postgraduate professors used to caution us frequently that predictions of the future aren’t within the historian’s purview. Every time historians have attempted to predict future events, he argued, they have failed miserably. Evidently, he was skeptical of Cicero’s famous dictum, Historia est magistra vitae. 

Yet he had a valid point. Historical understanding is fundamentally retrospective.

Nonetheless, the historical past can provide vital clues about the direction a leader might take. Therefore, before I venture into any speculation regarding Pope Leo XIV’s future trajectory, I must acknowledge that my observations, while grounded in evidence, remain inherently subjective, based upon scrutiny of the new Pope’s previous life, statements, and actions.

If his past actions and declarations are indicative, we might reasonably expect certain continuities from Pope Francis, especially regarding social justice, migration, and environmental stewardship, but with possibly more pronounced conservative stances on moral and ethical issues.

First, Pope Leo XIV’s record on migration clearly suggests continuity with Francis’ compassionate stance. As the bishop of Chiclayo in Peru, Prevost publicly advocated for Venezuelan refugees, viewing them as victims of an oppressive political and economic regime under Nicolás Maduro.

His criticism extended beyond Latin America. As it turns out, he openly condemned restrictive U.S. immigration policies during the Trump administration, arguing that a truly Christian approach must transcend national boundaries.

His advocacy for humane immigration policies was neither subtle nor infrequent. Rather, it was explicit and vocal, drawing attention from global media.

This suggests that Pope Leo XIV will likely continue the advocacy pioneered by Pope Francis for migrants and refugees worldwide, aligning closely with the social teachings outlined in encyclicals such as Fratelli Tutti and earlier papal messages on social justice.

However, Pope Leo XIV’s social policy is unlikely to represent a mere continuation of Francis’ agenda across all fronts. His previous declarations on “gender ideology” and sexuality reveal a markedly more conservative approach.

For example, in 2016, Prevost explicitly opposed the integration of gender theory into Peruvian educational curricula, criticizing such programs for promoting ideas that aren’t based in reality. He noted: 

Earlier, in 2012, Prevost also expressed disapproval of media representations he believed normalized same-sex relationships and parenting. In his address to the Synod of the Augustinian Order, he asserted:

Although Francis also maintained traditional teachings, he adopted a more conciliatory pastoral tone. Pope Leo XIV may thus steer the Church towards a more traditional doctrinal emphasis, particularly regarding sexuality and gender.

Similarly, Pope Leo XIV’s vocal advocacy for pro-life positions is unmistakable. He has openly participated in anti-abortion initiatives such as the March for Life and clearly articulated his opposition to euthanasia and capital punishment. By doing that, he reflected traditional Church teachings rooted in John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae.

Such positions suggest no imminent doctrinal shifts (Would that even be possible?) but rather reinforce longstanding Church teachings. This may reassure traditionalist factions within the Church, offering a sense of doctrinal continuity after a period perceived by some as characterized by ambiguity under Francis’ pontificate.

Environmental concerns are another domain where Pope Leo XIV has explicitly aligned with his predecessor. He has articulated the moral urgency of addressing climate change, echoing Francis’ environmental activism as expressed in the encyclical Laudato Si'. However, it remains to be seen how intensely he will pursue ecological issues.

In ecclesiastical governance, Leo XIV seems cautiously open to greater inclusion. Notably, his role in appointing women to significant positions within the Vatican hierarchy signals a willingness to extend their involvement in Church leadership, even if ordination itself remains off-limits.

In sum, I think Pope Leo XIV will likely represent both continuity and change. His record indicates that he will maintain Pope Francis’ progressive humanitarian legacy concerning migrants, refugees, and environmental stewardship, while potentially reasserting more traditional stances on morality and sexuality.

Conclusion

When Josef Stalin sarcastically asked, “How many divisions does the pope have?” he profoundly misunderstood the nature of papal power. Stalin measured authority by the count of tanks and soldiers, neglecting the intangible yet potent influence wielded by moral leadership, spiritual guidance, and the ability to shape global discourse. 

Indeed, history has repeatedly shown that the power of the papacy transcends conventional metrics of strength.

The election of Pope Leo XIV places the Catholic Church once again at a pivotal juncture. His choice of name aligns him with formidable historical predecessors: Leo the Great’s theological clarity, Leo X’s dramatic entanglements during the Reformation, and Leo XIII’s enduring social teachings.

Pope Leo XIV, therefore, inherits the complex challenges of contemporary society, ranging from migration crises and socio-economic inequalities to profound ethical debates over human dignity and identity. Not to mention issues of Biblical exegesis in the post-modern world! 

What remains uncertain is precisely how Pope Leo XIV will navigate these issues. Will his papacy be marked by cautious continuity with Pope Francis’ compassionate approach, or will he lean toward a renewed emphasis on doctrinal firmness and traditional morality?

As a scholar deeply influenced by the Catholic tradition, I earnestly hope Pope Leo XIV can chart a path forward that responsibly engages contemporary concerns without compromising the core doctrines of the Church. 

Only time will reveal how he’ll balance these profound responsibilities entrusted to him. In the end, Habemus Papam is only the first step – the initial proclamation that signals both closure and commencement, a moment in which the known past and uncertain future intersect.

Who Founded the Catholic Church? (TIMELINE)

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Two years ago, standing in front of the magnificent Basilica of St. Peter in Vatican City, as a historian, I couldn't evade a particular question: Who founded the Catholic Church? Was it Jesus himself? Or, perhaps, Peter — the very apostle after whom this impressive basilica is named? 

Such thoughts, standing at the heart of Catholicism, seemed inevitable. Millions of Catholics worldwide hold firmly to the belief that their Church traces directly back to the historical Jesus, with Peter appointed as the first bishop, a lineage claimed unbroken for nearly two millennia.

Yet, stepping back from theological beliefs and traditions, from a strictly historical perspective, the answer proves far more complex and nuanced.

To truly understand the historical roots of the Catholic Church, we must first examine the earliest decades after Jesus' crucifixion, beginning with the conviction among his followers that he had risen from the dead.

In this article, we'll trace these crucial historical developments step by step. We'll start by examining how Christianity grew and spread following Jesus’ crucifixion, explore its early expansion into Rome, investigate how a distinct hierarchy of leadership emerged there, and ultimately examine how the papacy rose to prominence.

By understanding these historical roots, we can better comprehend the fascinating complexities behind the formation of one of the world’s oldest and most influential religious institutions.

Before we delve into the question “Who founded the Catholic Church?”, there's another exciting opportunity I simply must share with you!

Dr. Bart D. Ehrman has a fascinating course titled Paul and Jesus: The Great Divide. In this engaging and insightful course, Dr. Ehrman explores two of the most pivotal figures in Christian history – revealing striking similarities, profound differences, and how their contrasting messages shaped Christianity as we know it today. If you're curious about the historical origins of the Christian religion, this course is an absolute must!

Who Founded the Catholic Church: From Crucifixion to the First Community

Who founded the Roman Catholic Church? In his book L'Évangile et l'Église (The Gospel and the Church), French biblical scholar Alfred Loisy famously declared, “Jésus annonçait le Royaume, et c'est l'Église qui est venue” (“Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom, and it was the Church that arrived”).

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

This provocative statement, which ultimately earned Loisy excommunication and significant outrage, raises a crucial historical question: Did Jesus himself envision the highly structured Church we know today? The short answer, historically speaking, is probably not.

Jesus preached about the imminent coming of God's Kingdom but never about founding a highly institutionalized religion.

Yet, within mere decades after Jesus’ crucifixion, precisely such an institution began to form, driven by a belief that set Jesus' followers apart from other Jewish sects: The conviction that he had been raised from the dead.

Without this foundational belief, Jesus might have been remembered merely as one of many messianic preachers who came and went in first-century Palestine, leaving no lasting religious legacy.

Initially, the community of believers was modest in size and centered exclusively in Jerusalem. According to the Acts of the Apostles, shortly after Jesus’ ascension into heaven, this first Christian community numbered approximately 120 followers — all Jews who remained in Jerusalem.

As Thomas Bokenkotter notes, “For a time the Church remained completely Jewish, a sect within Israel of those who believed in the resurrection of Jesus and regarded him as the promised Messiah who was about to come again to definitively establish the reign of God.” 

At this early stage, there would have been little need for formal organization or elaborate hierarchy. The term “church” itself could be somewhat misleading to modern readers, as the original Greek term ekklesia simply meant an “assembly” or “community,” lacking any developed institutional structure.

Still, even at these humble beginnings, elements were already emerging that would profoundly shape future Christian identity and worship. Jesus' life and death provided pivotal symbolic acts that his followers soon ritualized. His final meal with his disciples became the foundation for the Eucharist, a central act of Christian worship commemorating his sacrifice.

Likewise, the Incarnation (the belief that God became flesh in Jesus) is powerfully proclaimed at the very beginning of the Gospel of John, which set theological cornerstones upon which the church would later build.

Returning to Loisy's provocative insight, it seems historically accurate that Jesus himself likely never envisioned the structured Church that would emerge centuries later. Nonetheless, the great mysteries surrounding Jesus’ life, death, and especially his resurrection profoundly shaped how his earliest followers understood him and themselves.

Thus, from the humble beginnings of a small Jewish community in Jerusalem, driven by faith in the resurrection, emerged a movement that would gradually evolve into one of history's most influential institutions: The Catholic Church. How did that happen exactly? Let’s take a look!

Who Created the Catholic Church: Timeline

Before we explore in detail the gradual emergence of the Catholic Church following Jesus' death, we decided to craft a clear timeline highlighting some pivotal moments. (You're welcome! We know timelines are awesome — almost as awesome as our readers!)

Who Founded the Catholic Church: From Jerusalem to Rome

The Book of Acts suggests, almost certainly with idealization, that the earliest Christian community in Jerusalem shared their possessions, living in harmony. 

Even if somewhat romanticized, this portrayal reveals that early followers of Jesus (more accurately described historically as Jewish followers of Jesus) aimed at communal solidarity.

However, idealization aside, Acts does give us valuable insights into conflicts within this nascent community. It explicitly mentions tensions between Jewish followers who were Hellenized, speaking Greek and adopting Greek customs, and those who remained culturally Jewish and spoke Aramaic. 

The greatest controversy that arose in the early decades after Jesus' crucifixion was whether Gentiles could become full members of the community without first being circumcised and committing themselves to follow Jewish law.

It was at Antioch, one of the earliest centers of Christianity outside Jerusalem, that this crucial issue came dramatically to the fore. 

There, the followers of Jesus first preached openly to Gentiles and dared to baptize them without requiring circumcision or adherence to Mosaic Law. As a result, a more inclusive, 'liberal' approach gradually emerged, welcoming Gentiles into the community without insisting they become fully Jewish first.

The Apostle Paul's influence proved decisive at precisely this juncture. As James Hitchcock notes, “Observance of the Law of Moses was the essence of Judaism, but Paul made a radical break with that tradition, dismissing 'the Law' as a barrier that Christ had broken down, thereby giving man a new spiritual freedom.”

In doing so, Paul opened Christianity to the broader Greco-Roman world, embracing a universalistic approach that dovetailed perfectly with the Church's missionary impulse — a missionary fervor unique in the ancient religious landscape, as historian Martin Goodman has convincingly shown.

Despite these rapid theological developments, early Christian communities lacked any highly structured system of governance. 

As Hans von Campenhausen illustrates in his study, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries, Paul's letters reveal groups organized rather loosely, without sharply defined roles. Leadership was often charismatic, based on personal gifts and spiritual authority rather than formal hierarchies.

By the end of the first century, however, we start seeing a more structured leadership emerging: the so-called Pastoral Epistles (1-2 Timothy and Titus) explicitly reference “bishops” (episkopoi) and “presbyters” (elders), indicating an early phase of organizational structure emerging within these scattered communities.

In the early second century, these roles developed further, eventually giving rise to the model scholars call “monoepiscopacy,” the presence of a single bishop presiding over the community, supported by a collective of presbyters.

Ignatius of Antioch played a crucial role in promoting this hierarchical structure. Writing during his journey to martyrdom around 110 CE, Ignatius insisted that unity and doctrinal purity required a strong bishop overseeing a distinct and structured church community. 

Indeed, as Christianity expanded, bishops increasingly became central authorities in their local communities, shaping beliefs and enforcing orthodoxy.

Remarkably, it was also Ignatius who first explicitly used the phrase “Catholic Church” (ekklesia katholike), meaning something universal or “according to the whole.” At this early stage, the term didn’t indicate a single centralized institution but rather a unified, translocal community of believers. 

Yet, as Paula Fredriksen, referring to 2nd century Christianity, insightfully notes, “A unified translocal church, in short, was a notion created not by social reality but by the demands of rhetoric – my side, since true, is uniform; yours, false, must therefore be pluriform.”

In other words, the very idea of a universal (or “Catholic”) church emerged as a rhetorical strategy, designed precisely to counteract the growing diversity within second-century Christianity, particularly as new movements like Gnosticism challenged the authority and teachings of communities that would eventually label themselves “orthodox.”

Thus, paradoxically, it was precisely the proliferation of diverse interpretations — later labeled “heresies” — that accelerated the institutionalization of Christian leadership, organization, and doctrine. 

The designation “Catholic Church,” coined by Ignatius, reflected an aspiration more than reality — an attempt to establish a unified identity amid the striking diversity of second-century Christianity.  

It marked the initial steps toward forming what scholars today would call the “Catholic Church.” The crucial period, however, only came with the conversion of the Emperor Constantine. It was during the 4th and 5th centuries that the Catholic Church solidified its doctrines, practices, and hierarchy.

But before we turn our attention to the post-Constantine Church, let’s step back and take a brief look at the beginnings of Christianity in Rome.

The Emergence and the Development of Christianity in Rome

Who started the Catholic Church? Catholics traditionally trace the origins of the papal office in Rome directly back to Saint Peter, although historically, it remains almost impossible to establish a clear lineage.

Peter probably traveled to Rome, and ancient tradition holds that he died there during Nero's persecutions around 64 C.E. But, notably, Peter didn’t found the Christian community in Rome, and we do not know exactly who did.

The earliest phase of Roman Christianity, as Peter Lampe notes, remains “shrouded in haze.” According to Lampe, Christianity likely entered Rome through established trade routes linking the eastern Mediterranean to Italy, particularly the critical trade corridor connecting Puteoli with Rome itself.

The earliest followers of Jesus in the city were probably Jewish Christians or “God-fearers” associated with Rome’s synagogue communities rather than converts made by direct apostolic activity.

The earliest solid evidence of Christians in Rome coincides with conflicts in the 40s C.E. within Jewish synagogues over a figure Suetonius identifies as “Chrestus.” 

This turmoil prompted Emperor Claudius to expel from Rome key Jewish figures involved, an event scholars usually date around 49 C.E. Aquila and Priscilla, prominent early Christians who later appear in Paul's letters, were among those expelled, confirming Christianity’s early and controversial presence within Rome’s Jewish communities.

Over the next century, the initially informal and loosely connected Roman Christian communities developed increasingly defined leadership structures.

By the close of the 2nd century, communities had become markedly hierarchical. Bishops in major urban centers (Rome, Antioch, Alexandria) held considerable authority, surpassing the influence of bishops in smaller surrounding towns and paving the way for the concept of metropolitan bishopric.

Rome’s prominence among these bishoprics emerged not merely through ecclesiastical administration but also due to powerful theological and historical rhetoric. Central to this rhetoric was the tradition, well-established by the late second century, that both Paul and Peter had died in Rome. No other city in the Roman Empire could argue that!

Irenaeus of Lyon particularly emphasized this claim, arguing that Rome’s church represented the ultimate model of fidelity due to the direct apostolic lineage of its bishops. 

While contemporary scholars question the historical veracity of Irenaeus' apostolic succession and generally agree that Peter almost certainly wasn’t Rome’s first bishop, the rhetorical power of this tradition permanently shaped Christianity's collective memory and contributed significantly to Rome's ecclesiastical preeminence.

Finally, Rome’s religious prominence took on political power in the wake of Constantine’s conversion to Christianity in the 4th century, when the organizational system of the Catholic Church was firmly based, giving rise to the Church we know today.

From Bishop to Pope: The Rise of Papacy and the Catholic Church

This description by French historian Paul Veyne neatly captures the historical significance of Emperor Constantine's conversion. Indeed, Constantine's embrace of Christianity provided the Catholic Church with crucial political backing and, in times of crisis, even military support.

His conversion marked the beginning of a profound transformation: The Church transitioned from a persecuted minority to an openly imperially supported institution.

The fourth and fifth centuries, shaped decisively by imperial patronage, were vital in the development of the Catholic Church's foundational structures, practices, and doctrines. These were centuries marked by intense theological debates concerning the nature of Christ, the Trinity, and the precise relationship between Christ’s humanity and divinity.

Such issues were central to four pivotal ecumenical councils convened between 325 and 451 — Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451). These councils had tremendous and lasting influence, shaping theological orthodoxy for most Christian traditions.

But who founded the Catholic Church as we know it institutionally? Historically speaking, the answer lies less in a single person or moment and more in a gradual institutional evolution spanning centuries.

Yet one figure stands out as pivotal during this period: the Bishop of Rome. The rise of the papacy (initially simply the Roman episcopate) emerged gradually from the late third century onward. By the late 4th century, the title “pope” (papa), meaning “father,” was being used regularly for certain bishops, most notably the bishop of Rome. 

The earliest known Roman bishop consistently addressed as “pope” was Siricius (384-399 C.E.). Siricius not only embraced the title but used it explicitly to assert authority, setting precedents for later claims to universal jurisdiction within the Church.

The prominence of the Roman papacy significantly increased during the 5th century, driven in part by Rome’s symbolic prestige as the supposed final resting place of apostles Peter and Paul. Bishops of Rome (now clearly "popes") actively took part in theological controversies, doctrinal definitions, and administrative oversight across wide geographical areas.

Pope Leo I, known to history as Leo the Great (440-461), stands out as an exceptional example. Leo vigorously promoted papal primacy and explicitly articulated Rome’s theological authority in his famous Tome, a critical document read at the Council of Chalcedon (451).

Perhaps the most iconic example of Pope Leo’s stature occurred in 452, when Attila the Hun threatened to sack Rome. Leo personally confronted Attila near Mantua, negotiating with enough moral and political authority that the Hun turned his armies away from the city.

Although historians debate the exact reasons Attila withdrew, Leo’s dramatic intervention vividly illustrates the papacy’s increasing prominence and prestige.

Thus, between the conversion of Constantine and the pontificate of Leo the Great, the foundations for the medieval papacy and the Catholic Church's enduring institutional structure were solidified.

The Roman papacy gradually transformed from a respected bishopric into the central authority within Western Christianity, politically influential and theologically decisive. This process of institutionalization helps us understand why the seemingly simple question, “Who founded the Catholic Church?” resists a simple historical answer.

In other words, the Catholic Church as we know it wasn’t the creation of any single founder but the outcome of centuries of theological debate, institutional growth, political influence, and historical circumstance. To put it bluntly, there is no single founder of the first Catholic Church.

Conclusion

It was more than 150 years ago that Alfred Loisy stirred controversy and found himself expelled from the Catholic Church for asserting that the historical Jesus never intended to create a structured community that would last 2,000 years.

Yet, history unfolded precisely in that direction — though certainly not in a straightforward manner. Throughout my school years, religious education classes taught me the common view that the Catholic Church traces directly back to the apostle Peter, purportedly selected by Jesus himself to be the head of the new community.

However, as a historian of early Christianity, I now understand that Loisy was much closer to the truth than my high school teacher.

Ultimately, the question “Who founded the Catholic Church?” can’t be answered by pointing to a single figure or moment. Instead, the Catholic Church emerged gradually from centuries of complex interactions involving theological disputes, institutional evolution, charismatic authority, and political power.

In other words, the Catholic Church as we know it today wasn’t the vision of one founder but the cumulative product of historical circumstances, human decisions, and profound religious convictions that unfolded over several centuries.

Mormon Beliefs: 10 Key Beliefs of the LDS Church

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Imagine if I told you about an extraordinary revelation I recently experienced. While casually watching TV, an angel appeared to me, giving instructions to write a new, updated version of the Bible.

The angel said this version would contain the ultimate truth about God, Jesus, and salvation. You probably wouldn’t believe me — and that’s perfectly reasonable. Yet, a similar origin story lies at the heart of Mormon beliefs, a religion that has historically experienced rapid growth and remains one of the world’s most fascinating movements.

Mormonism, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), began in the early 19th century with a young man named Joseph Smith. According to Smith, he had a vision of God and Jesus as a teenager, followed by a series of angelic visitations that culminated in the translation of sacred writings now known as the Book of Mormon.

What do Mormons believe? How do their views of Jesus, women, and other theological topics compare to mainstream Christianity? Their Church is built on a distinct set of tenets that set it apart, and understanding these beliefs offers a unique window into their world.

In this article, we’ll uncover the historical origins of Mormonism, explore its foundational teachings, and analyze its modern-day growth and influence. By delving into Mormon beliefs as well as the data behind their expansion, we’ll gain insight into a religion that has both captured imaginations and faced controversies. 

Before we dive in, I encourage you to explore Bart D. Ehrman’s fascinating online course, “Paul and Jesus: The Great Divide.”

While many assume these pivotal figures shared the same religion and theological views, the reality is far more complex. Discover what contemporary scholars have uncovered — check out Dr. Ehrman’s course today!

Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traces its origins to the 19th century. It was a time of fervent religious revival known as the Second Great Awakening, when a sense of religious excitement was on the rise.

In his book, An Introduction to Mormonism, Douglas J. Davies notes:

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

Emerging from this spiritual hothouse, Mormonism introduced a set of distinctive beliefs that have shaped its identity and inspired devotion and debate. 

Central to its foundation is the story of Joseph Smith Jr., a young man from rural Vermont whose visions and revelations laid the groundwork for what would become one of the fastest-growing religious movements in the world.

Joseph Smith Jr. was born in 1805 into a poor farming family with a deep interest in religion and folk traditions. The Smith family eventually settled in Palmyra, New York, in a region dubbed the “Burned-Over District” due to the intensity of religious revivalism.

Thomas F. O’Dea, in his sociological study of Mormon beliefs and origins, describes the cultural background of New York State at the beginning of the 19th century. He asserts:

As a boy, Joseph was influenced by his parents’ fascination with dreams and their relentless search for a church that felt “right.”

In 1820, at the age of 14, Joseph retreated into the woods to pray for guidance amidst the religious discord of his time. It was there, he claimed, that he had a vision of God the Father and Jesus, who told him that all existing churches had strayed from true Christianity.

This experience became the cornerstone of Mormon beliefs and marked the beginning of Joseph Smith's role as a prophet.

Three years later, at the age of 17, Joseph described another pivotal encounter. He claimed that an angel named Moroni appeared to him, announcing that God had a great mission for him. Moroni directed him to a set of golden plates buried near his home, inscribed with a sacred text in an unknown language.

Alongside these plates were two stones, known as the Urim and Thummim, which Smith described as divinely prepared tools to help him translate the text. However, the angel didn’t allow him to take the plates immediately. 

Richard Bushman, in Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction, explains that, according to later accounts, Joseph Smith initially doubted his vision when a supernatural force prevented him from retrieving the golden plates, despite seeing them clearly. The angel reappeared, admonishing Smith that his failure was due to mercenary motives.

It was only in 1827 that he was permitted to retrieve the plates and begin translating them. Interestingly enough, early Smith’s associates Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris testified that they saw the angel Moroni and the golden plates. 

To be more precise, they stated that the angel showed them the plates and that they heard the voice of God that affirmed their truthfulness. Later on, they left Joseph Smith and the Church, but none of them even denied their testimony! 

In any case, Joseph’s efforts led to the publication of The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ in 1830. According to Smith, the book was a record of ancient prophets who lived on the American continent and bore witness to Jesus Christ. Furthermore, the Native Americans are depicted in the book as descendants of the Israelites. 

While Mormons accept this account as a foundational truth, scholars have long questioned the authenticity of Smith’s claims. Richard Abanes, for instance, has pointed out the numerous anachronisms and the fact that archeological evidence doesn’t align with Smith’s statements about the Native American tribes.

He asserts: 

Regardless, the publication of the Book of Mormon marked the formal establishment of the LDS Church in the same year, with Smith as its first leader and prophet.

The Church of Mormons: Initial Establishment and Challenges

As the fledgling church grew, its members faced significant challenges. The Mormons settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, in 1839, where they prospered for a time under Smith’s leadership. The community attracted thousands of converts, including many from England, and even organized its militia.

However, Smith’s revelations — including the controversial practice of plural marriage — strained relations with outsiders. In 1844, a mob killed Joseph Smith, leaving the Church without its founder and leader.

Following Smith’s death, a succession crisis divided the church. Some followed his wife, Emma Smith, to form what is now known as the Community of Christ, while others rallied around Brigham Young, who led the majority of Mormons westward to Utah. 

There, in the valley of the Great Salt Lake, they sought to establish a new Zion. Over time, the Church renounced polygamy and integrated into American society, evolving into a global religious community with over 15 million members today.

Richard Bushman aptly observes that Joseph Smith’s most remarkable legacy was the creation of the Mormon community itself. Even those who remain skeptical of Smith’s teachings often recognize the unique cohesion and solidarity of the Latter-day Saints.

Thomas F. O’Dea similarly noted that, among the various social groups that developed in America, the Mormons “came closer to evolving an ethnic identity on this continent than any other group,” highlighting their distinctive cultural and communal bonds.

And it all began with the story of Joseph Smith and his extraordinary religious experiences, which laid the foundation for Mormon beliefs. Having traced the fascinating history of its origins, let us now turn to the heart of the matter: The belief system that defines this unique faith tradition.

Mormon Beliefs: An Introduction

A couple of years ago, I had an intriguing conversation with a young Mormon missionary on the streets of Zagreb. Knowing that Croatia is predominantly Catholic, he introduced himself as a member of the Christian community, emphasizing his connection to the broader Christian tradition. However, this claim often sparks debate.

Many Christians are deeply unsettled when Mormons describe their faith as part of Christianity. Trent Horn, speaking from the Catholic perspective, concludes, for example, that Mormons are “so alien to the Christian belief that they essentially belong to another religion.”

To these critics, Mormons represent an entirely distinct religion, primarily for three reasons:

Without taking sides in this debate, it’s worth noting how those in established religious traditions often react to new movements with skepticism, quickly questioning their identity markers.

One can almost imagine ancient Jewish leaders in Jerusalem scoffing at early followers of Jesus who identified themselves as Jews: “They still go to the Temple but with their Christology? They aren’t Jews! No way!” History has a way of repeating itself when drawing lines around religions. That being said, let’s take a closer look at the Mormon beliefs.

What Do Mormons Believe? Scripture, Tradition, and Salvation

Mormon beliefs encompass a rich tapestry of teachings, many of which diverge significantly from the major branches of Christianity. Central to these differences are the role of scripture, the nature of God and humanity, and the specific practices that shape the daily lives of Latter-day Saints.

One of the most defining features of Mormon beliefs is their embrace of additional holy scriptures. Alongside the Bible, Mormons hold the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price as sacred texts.

Davies explains: 

Furthermore, the Mormon Church believes its leaders — Smith’s successors — are modern prophets capable of issuing teachings on par with scriptural revelation. This expanded canon of scripture contrasts sharply with both the Protestant principle of “Sola scriptura” and the Catholic view of the closed Scripture. 

Historically, one of the most controversial aspects of early Mormonism was the practice of polygamy. Around 1831, Joseph Smith claimed to have received a revelation instructing Mormon men to marry multiple wives, citing the examples of Israel’s patriarchs.

Yet this innovation, as O'Dea notes, was important to Mormons for other reasons. Not only did it set them apart from gentiles more definitely and more definitively than anything else they had done, but all Mormon doctrinal innovations were to fall into place around this new teaching on marriage. The Mormon doctrine of marriage made sexuality a means to celestial glory.

However, the introduction of this practice was fraught with conflict, even within the community. Smith secretly entered into polygamous marriages — allegedly taking between 30 and 40 wives, some of whom were already married or very young — before publicly announcing the doctrine.

Unsurprisingly, this revelation caused considerable outrage, including resistance from his wife, Emma, who initially sought to mobilize Mormon women in protest. Although Mormons officially abandoned polygamy in 1890, the association between their Church and plural marriage continues to shape public perceptions of this religion.

In his book Mormon Polygamy: A History, Richard S. Van Wagoner traces the changing status of polygamy:

What Do Mormons Believe About Jesus and Salvation?

One of the most fascinating aspects of Mormon theology is its understanding of God, humanity, and Jesus. Traditional Christianity teaches that God is wholly separate from human beings and is one in essence, existing as a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Mormon beliefs, however, depart significantly from these doctrines. Joseph Smith taught that God was once a mortal being who achieved exaltation and is now an “exalted man” with a physical body of flesh and bone.

What do Mormons believe about Jesus’ identity and importance? While Jesus is central to their theology, their understanding of him differs from traditional Christian teachings. Mormons view Jesus as the literal Son of God, the most exalted of God’s spirit children, who holds a unique role in salvation.

Unlike mainstream Christian doctrine, which emphasizes Jesus as fully God and fully man in a paradoxical union, Mormon theology presents him as a divine figure distinct from God the Father. His atoning sacrifice is considered vital, but salvation isn’t solely dependent on faith in Jesus; it also involves personal righteousness and adherence to specific practices.

Mormon beliefs about salvation reflect a complex framework known as the “plan of salvation.” While faith in Jesus is foundational, salvation requires a life of righteousness guided by adherence to LDS teachings.

This includes observing dietary restrictions, such as abstaining from alcohol and coffee, treating the body as a sacred temple, and tithing — donating 10% of one’s income to the church.

Mormons also emphasize the importance of temple rituals, which are central to their spiritual life. These rituals, performed in temples not open to the public, include the “endowment,” where members learn about salvation and make covenants with God, and “sealing,” which unites families for eternity.

Referring to the former ritual, Richard Abanes explains: 

The Mormon Church presents a worldview that blends ancient scriptural traditions with modern revelations through these distinctive beliefs and practices. Whether viewed as an extension of Christianity or a wholly distinct religion, Mormon beliefs offer a unique lens through which to explore questions about religion, community, salvation, and the divine.

What Do Mormons Believe About Women?

The role of women in Mormon beliefs and practices is both significant and at times the subject of debate among scholars and observers. Women play an important role in the LDS Church, especially in family life and spiritual development, where they are often seen as central figures in the fulfillment of God’s plan.

Mormon theology emphasizes the concept of “eternal families,” where women, as wives and mothers, play an essential role in raising children, maintaining households, and supporting their husbands in both spiritual and practical matters.

However, unlike men, women in the Mormon Church aren’t permitted to hold the priesthood, which is considered the authority to perform sacred ordinances, lead congregations, and administer church functions.

For that reason, Davies notes, the organization of the LDS Church, as well as its history, is a faith history of great men, and of some great women, but the men predominate. 

In recent years, Mormons have taken steps to address concerns about gender roles, highlighting the spiritual equality of men and women within God’s plan. Leaders emphasize that women possess unique spiritual gifts and are integral to the church’s mission and growth. 

While debates surrounding women’s ordination and leadership persist, Mormon females continue to occupy influential roles as teachers, missionaries, and leaders within women’s and youth organizations.

In an interview, Terryl Givens from the University of Richmond notes the paradoxical nature of women’s position: 

Do Mormons Have Any Crazy Beliefs?

The question of whether Mormons — or any religious group — hold “crazy” or “weird” beliefs is a matter of perspective. “Crazy” or “weird” concepts are highly situational and subjective, shaped by cultural norms, personal experiences, and individual worldviews.

Sociologists and anthropologists refer to such labels as “emic” terms — developed by outsiders to describe groups or individuals they perceive as “other.” While such descriptions might reflect a particular viewpoint, they hold little value in scholarly analysis, which seeks to understand belief systems objectively rather than judge them through the lens of personal bias.

To put this into context, consider some of the beliefs and stories found within mainstream Christianity. For a non-believer, or someone unfamiliar with its traditions, certain elements might appear puzzling, unusual, or even outlandish.

A talking serpent in the Book of Genesis? Earthquakes accompanied by saints rising from their graves in the Gospel of Matthew? And what about the central doctrine of Christianity itself — the resurrection of a man who had been dead for three days?

For someone with a strictly materialistic or atheistic worldview, these concepts might sound “crazy” or implausible. Yet for millions of Christians, they are sacred truths central to their religion.

The phenomenon isn’t limited to religion. Non-religious ideologies, such as political movements, have also been known to inspire practices and beliefs that might strike outsiders as strange. Consider Soviet Communism, a movement often analyzed for its “quasi-religious” qualities.

In his thought-provoking book Komunizam kao religija (Communism as a Religion), Mihail Riklin explores the rituals, symbols, and belief systems embraced by Soviet communists — elements that, to an outside observer, might seem as “crazy” even more than any religious doctrine.

For this reason, a scholarly approach to the study of religion categorically rejects such terms and judgments. 

Instead, scholars strive to understand religious beliefs, practices, and rituals from multiple perspectives: both from the inside, as experienced and explained by believers themselves, and from a broader, bird’s-eye view that considers their cultural, historical, and social contexts.

Thus, as a historian and scholar of religion, I reject the idea of labeling any belief system as inherently “crazy” or “weird.” Mormonism, in particular, represents a fascinating and significant aspect of the religious landscape of the United States.

It has often been described as “the most American religion”— a pioneering faith that emphasizes free will, personal revelation, and family as core values.

Whether one agrees with Mormon beliefs they deserve to be studied and understood with the same care and respect that we extend to any other religious tradition. After all, what may seem “strange” to one person is often deeply meaningful to another.

The Growth of Mormonism: Sociological Perspective

An important aspect of Mormons' beliefs is their emphasis on missionary work. For members of the community, going on a mission isn’t just encouraged; it’s considered a rite of passage. Every healthy young man is expected to serve a two-year mission starting at age 18. These missions are a cornerstone of Mormon life, similar to, for instance, Jehovah’s Witnesses. 

From its humble beginnings in the early 19th century with just a handful of followers, the LDS Church grew exponentially throughout the 20th century. By the century’s end, its membership had swelled to over 10 million members worldwide, making it one of the fastest-growing religious movements in modern history.

Today, the church boasts more than 15 million members and a presence in nearly every country. This remarkable expansion prompts a compelling question: How do we explain the extraordinary growth of the LDS Church?

Part of the answer lies in the leadership of the LDS Church during its formative years. Joseph Smith is often described as a religious genius. Contemporary accounts highlight his remarkable charisma and ability to connect with people on a deeply emotional and spiritual level. 

After Smith’s death, Brigham Young emerged as a skilled organizer and pragmatic leader who guided the church westward and established a strong, cohesive community in Utah, laying the groundwork for future growth.

Another key factor is the LDS Church’s (already mentioned) devotion to missionary work. Missionaries go to great lengths to share Mormon beliefs with people from all walks of life, fostering a culture of outreach that has brought countless converts into the fold. 

A third reason for the church’s success is its ability to create a distinct and cohesive culture that inspires deep loyalty among its members. Being Mormon isn’t merely about attending church services twice a year (what British sociologist Grace Davie would call “believing without belonging”) or holding a mixed bag of beliefs. Rather, it’s a full identity that permeates every aspect of life. 

Research by sociologists Rodney Stark and William S. Bainbridge further illuminates the dynamics of Mormon conversions. Their study, published in The Future of Religion, reveals that conversion is rarely the result of a random encounter, such as a door-to-door visit by missionaries.

Instead, it often stems from personal connections. Stark and Bainbridge found out that when missionaries made initial contact with individuals in the homes of Mormon friends or relatives, the likelihood of conversion skyrocketed to 50%. 

This discovery demonstrates the importance of social ties in religious growth; strong personal attachments to members of the LDS Church often outweigh existing relationships outside the group, paving the way for successful conversion efforts. 

And if the PEW study from 2014 is accurate, Mormonism continues to thrive, with over 80% of its members stating that their religion is very important to them — a stark contrast, for instance, to the 58% of Catholics who say the same.

Finally, Davies summarizes the reasons for the growth of Mormon religion in the following way:

10 Key Mormon Beliefs: Chart

We thought you might appreciate a quick cheat sheet before we wrap up our exploration into the Mormons' beliefs and practices.

Because, let’s face it, understanding religious doctrines can sometimes feel like studying for a final exam you didn’t know you signed up for! Below is a table highlighting 10 key Mormon beliefs that offer a concise yet scholarly glimpse into what makes this faith tradition so distinct.

Conclusion

Reflecting on my conversation with the young Mormon missionary on the streets of Zagreb, it becomes clear that Mormonism's appeal lies not only in its unique history but also in the distinct theological framework that underpins its identity. 

The LDS Church has carved out a significant place in the global religious landscape, blending 19th-century American revivalist enthusiasm with teachings and practices that continue to inspire devotion among millions of followers.

Finally, understanding Mormon beliefs, from their expanded canon of scripture to their emphasis on family and missionary work, offers valuable insights into how this religion has evolved and thrived despite challenges and controversies. It will be interesting to follow up on sociological stats and curves of Mormonism in the years ahead. 

Non-Denominational Church: Meaning and Beliefs

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Non-denominational churches represent a unique and increasingly popular segment of the Christian faith. The percentage of people attending a non-denominational church in recent years, particularly in the United States, has been remarkable, with these believers now forming an impressive percentage of Protestant American Christians.

In this article, I’ll explain the definition and history of non-denominational Christianity, examining its origins, distinguishing characteristics, and ongoing influence within the broader landscape of Protestantism.

What Is a Non-Denominational Church?

A denomination is a religious group within Christianity that includes multiple congregations aligned with each other. Denominations are defined by such characteristics as their moniker, history, founder, form of organization, theological doctrines, and worship style. In this sense, a Methodist from Colorado should be able to visit a Methodist church in Maine and find a familiar setting in which to worship.

Non-denominational Christianity, then, is simply a branch of the Christian church which does not officially associate itself with established denominations, including all Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox forms. It is a rapidly growing movement. According to an article by Daniel Silliman, people calling themselves non-denominational Christians are currently the largest segment of Protestants in America.

How different are non-denominational churches compared to the denominations from which they distance themselves? The first thing to know about non-denominational churches is that each sees itself as autonomous. In other words, its members govern the church rather than an overarching denominational government, as in most Protestant and Catholic churches. This non-denominational form of organization is known as congregational polity.

History of the Non-Denominational Church

In terms of history, the non-denominational church has its roots in the 18th and 19th centuries in the United States. This makes sense, in that this country has always emphasized individualism at the expense of communalism, embracing a self-governing ideal. To understand the origins of this type of church, though, we need to understand the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement.

Between the 1730s and the 1770s, a Protestant renewal of religious fervor known as the First Great Awakening happened in the American colonies, as well as England, Scotland, and Germany. In many ways, this movement was a reaction to the principles of reason and science emphasized by the Enlightenment.

Fearing that these principles would all but erase the ideals and beliefs of faith, charismatic preachers crisscrossed the country, preaching in churches and open-air meetings about the necessity of faith and the consequences of abandoning it. One of the most famous of these preachers was Jonathan Edwards, a Connecticut theologian who summed up his theological  principles in the title of his sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”

The fervor of the First Great Awakening faded with time, but there was a Second Great Awakening between 1790 and 1840 which would reignite it and establish the movement of non-denominational churches. Two groups, acting independently, came to many of the same theological conclusions about the foundation of this movement.

The first group was led by Barton Stone, a Presbyterian minister who struck out on his own after doctrinal disagreements with members of his church. His group merely called themselves “Christians.” The second was led by Thomas Campbell, also a former Presbyterian minister who began operating independently for similar reasons. Campbell’s group called themselves “Disciples of Christ.”

Like many religious movements, both groups involved in what came to be known as the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement sought to get back to an imagined ideal church depicted in the Bible. They believed that all creeds, as used by other denominations, kept Christians divided, while a true church should unite all Christians. In 1832, Stone and Campbell joined their movements.

Interestingly, for a group so against creeds, there were fundamental principles this group insisted on that sounded a lot like a creed. These included the belief that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God, that members should partake in the Lord’s Supper or Communion on the first day of every week, and that adults (not infants) should be baptized by immersion.

While these may seem like very basic conditions, the movement would nevertheless later fracture into many groups. However, it’s important to note that all of these groups fell clearly within the scope of modern Evangelical Christianity.

Features of Non-Denominational Churches

As I said before, non-denominational churches do not officially align themselves with any established denominations, although all are distinctly Protestant. In addition, a great number of denominational churches would agree with the principles outlined above. In fact, most non-denominational churches are aligned with broader Protestant Christian movements. They generally insist on the total authority of the Bible, for example, and claim that their church emphasizes only what all true Christians have in common rather than what divides them.

So how are non-denominational churches different from others? Interestingly, most align themselves with other non-denominational churches, both in principle and practice, often even naming their traditions. This blurs the lines between what is a denomination and what isn’t. Some of these families of churches, according to a 2015 Pew Research Study, call themselves non-denominational evangelical, some call themselves non-denominational fundamentalist, and others non-denominational Charismatic. It’s sometimes hard to know, for this reason, which of these is closely aligned with the others and which are truly distinct on an individual basis beyond the name.

In his book Dieu XXL (God XXL), Sébastien Fath writes that the vast majority of megachurches are non-denominational. Megachurches are modern churches characterized by massive congregations, usually 2,000 or more people attending each weekend, according to the Hartford Institute for Religion Research, and lavish buildings reflecting the sizable donations of congregants and other large donors.

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

Although non-denominational churches are technically not affiliated with particular denominations, seeing themselves as largely autonomous, according to Ed Stetzer, the majority of them are quite similar to all Evangelical and/or Pentecostal churches. Again, we see that those who call themselves non-denominational fall generally within a narrow band of Protestant churches, no matter what other names they may give themselves.

Additionally, political scientist and statistician Ryan Burge writes that, according to the title of his article, “Nondenominational Protestants Are Basically Southern Baptists (With a Few Caveats)”. Burge outlines the few differences between the two:

By the way, here is a directory of non-denominational churches in the United States.

Criticism of Non-Denominational Churches

Despite the popularity of non-denominational churches, as evidenced by rapidly growing megachurches, many have criticized them for various reasons. For example, in Theology in Service to the Church : Global and Ecumenical Perspectives, Presbyterian theologian Amy Plantinga Pauw writes that non-denominational churches “often seem to lack any acknowledgement of their debts and ties to larger church traditions.” She also writes that "for now, these non-denominational churches are living off the theological capital of more established Christian communities, including those of denominational Protestantism."

Furthermore, in his book Ecumenism Means You, Too: Ordinary Christians and the Quest for Christian Unity, Steven Harmon writes that those Christians defining themselves as non-denominational ignore some of the facts by which they do align with established denominations:

Finally, referring to recent sex abuse scandals in non-denominational churches, Elle Hardy writes that because nondenominational churches have no hierarchy or overarching authority to answer to, pastors with authoritarian personalities are often able to exert power and control over their congregants. Hardy quotes scholar Matthew Taylor as saying that because there is little to no accountability, pastors "who are more megalomaniacal and authoritarian in their personality” are often drawn to non-denominational churches, a fact borne out by recent scandals.

Conclusion: What Is a Non-Denominational Church?

Non-denominational churches began as a movement in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Two former Presbyterian pastors started independent churches and eventually came together, forming a movement now known as the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement and corresponding with the Second Great Awakening in the United States.

Despite their claim to independence and self-governance, these churches definitely have their roots in Evangelical Protestantism. A recent study has shown that non-denominational Christians are the largest segment of Protestant Christians in the United States, and many of their gathering places are vast megachurches.

However, these churches are not without their detractors. Some argue that non-denominational churches owe an unacknowledged theological and doctrinal debt to denominations that came before them. Others have noted that no matter what they call themselves, their doctrinal and worship choices place them firmly within a tradition, perhaps even Southern Baptist traditions, according to one scholar.

Finally, the lack of hierarchy may make these churches appealing to authoritarian pastors, some of whom have taken advantage of this lack of accountability to abuse their congregants, creating scandals within their congregations.

Dionysius the Areopagite: Everything We Know

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Dionysius the Areopagite is one of those enigmatic figures in New Testament history I’ve always wanted to know more about! The Gospels and Acts, which hold special places within the New Testament, recount central events of the nascent Christian movement while introducing cameo figures like Dionysius, who illuminate broader theological themes.

Mentioned only once in the New Testament, he appears in the Book of Acts (17:34) as a convert of Paul’s bold speech at the Areopagus in Athens, the intellectual heart of ancient Greece.

In this article, we’ll explore everything we know about Dionysius the Areopagite. We’ll begin by examining the origins of Christianity in Athens, shedding light on the cultural and religious context of the city following Jesus’ death. Next, we’ll delve into the historical figure of Dionysius as described in the New Testament and later Church tradition.

Finally, we’ll investigate the writings attributed to him — works that, while now considered pseudonymous, have profoundly shaped Christian thought for centuries. Together, these threads will help us untangle the legacy of this mysterious figure at the crossroads of history, religion, and philosophy.

However, before we begin, I want to invite you to check out Bart D. Ehrman’s online course “Paul and Jesus: The Great Divide.” Through 8 captivating lectures, Dr. Ehrman analyses two pivotal figures in the history of Christianity, revealing their similarities but also striking differences! 

Christianity in Athens: The Early Days

To understand who Dionysius the Areopagite was, we must take notice of the broader issue of the Christianization of Greece, most notably Athens. 

The emergence of Christianity in Greece is intrinsically tied to the missionary journeys of the Apostle Paul, whose work is pivotal in introducing the Christian message to the region. Following Jesus’ death, Paul embarked on extensive travels across the eastern Mediterranean, preaching in urban centers where he could reach diverse audiences.

Bart D. Ehrman, in The Triumph of Christianity, outlines Paul’s typical strategy: 

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

Furthermore, some scholars have suggested that Paul was preaching on the job, using his day work to attract new potential converts! 

This pragmatic approach combined Paul’s Jewish heritage with his mission to reach Gentiles, enabling him to establish footholds for Christianity in cities such as Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, and Athens.

Athens, as the intellectual and cultural heart of the Greek world, presented both unique opportunities and formidable challenges for early Christianity. Renowned for its legacy as the cradle of Western philosophy, Athens was home to schools of thought established by figures including Plato, Aristotle, and Epicurus.

Christianity, with its proclamation of a crucified and resurrected messiah, would have seemed alien, even subversive, to many Athenians steeped in these traditions. 

Nevertheless, Paul’s alleged visit to Athens, recorded in Acts 17, marked an important moment for the spread of Christianity in Greece. His speech at the Areopagus, engaging with Athenian religiosity and philosophy, symbolized the nascent faith’s willingness to engage with and challenge the intellectual traditions of the ancient world.

Beyond Athens, as Raymond Van Dam notes, early Christianity in Greece developed unevenly, reflecting the distinct social and cultural dynamics of its regions.

In Macedonia, Paul found receptive audiences in cities like Philippi and Thessalonica, which were key stops along the Via Egnatia, a major Roman trade route. 

These cities became vital centers for the early Christian movement, bolstered by Paul’s letters and his connections with their fledgling communities. In Corinth, Paul established one of his most significant congregations, grappling with issues of unity, morality, and theological disputes that are vividly documented in his epistles.

By contrast, Athens, though culturally prestigious, appeared slower to embrace Christianity, with only sporadic evidence of a substantial Christian presence in its early years.

Christianity’s growth in Greece was shaped by the broader socio-political realities of the Roman Empire. Greek cities like Corinth, Athens, and Thessalonica were integrated into a vast imperial network that facilitated the exchange of ideas but also exposed Christian communities to sporadic persecution.

By the 4th century, following Constantine’s conversion and the Edict of Milan, Christianity gained imperial support, accelerating its spread throughout Greece. Imperial patronage under Constantine and his successors catalyzed the Christianization of Greek cities. Public spaces and temples, such as the Parthenon, were repurposed for Christian worship. 

Finally, after the sudden death of the last pagan emperor in 363 C.E., there was no going back: Greece with its rich philosophical and cultural tradition was on its way to become another Christianized part of the Roman Empire!

With this broader historical and cultural background in mind, we can now turn our attention to Dionysius the Areopagite, exploring his role within the early Christian community in Athens and the enduring legacy attributed to his name.

Who Was Dionysius the Areopagite?

Dionysius the Areopagite appears in the Acts of the Apostles (17:34) as a key figure in the narrative of Paul’s missionary work in Athens.

His name is mentioned after Paul’s speech at the Areopagus, where we are told that “some of them joined him and became believers, including Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.”

The label “Areopagite” suggests that Dionysius was a member of the Areopagus council, a distinguished judicial and administrative body linked to Athens’ intellectual and political traditions. This association places Dionysius among the city’s elite, possibly well-versed in the philosophical currents of the time.

The story of his conversion illustrates that the early Christian message of Jesus’ redemptive death and resurrection resonated with individuals from diverse social backgrounds. Scholars such as Edwin A. Judge and Wayne Meeks have explored this notion in extenso. 

His conversion, alongside Damaris and others, signals the early Christian message’s capacity to resonate with individuals from diverse social and intellectual backgrounds.

Paul’s speech leading to Dionysius’ conversion is one of the most famous episodes in Acts, showcasing Paul’s rhetorical dexterity in engaging a sophisticated audience. Summoned by the Athenians for his “strange” teaching about Jesus and the resurrection, “Paul” crafts a speech that walks a fine line between critique and accommodation. 

He begins by commending the Athenians for their religiosity, cleverly using their altar to an “Unknown God” as a bridge to introduce the Christian God. Paul then emphasizes God’s transcendence, describing him as the creator and sustainer of all things, not confined to temples or dependent on human offerings. The climax of the speech is Paul’s call to repentance which is rooted in God’s appointed judgment through Jesus. 

Yet, as C.K. Barrett asserts in his Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Acts, this speech is unlikely to represent a verbatim transcript of Paul’s words. Rather, it reflects Luke’s theological and narrative aims, providing an idealized depiction of Paul’s engagement with the Athenian elite.

This perspective aligns with the early Church’s strategy (e.g. Justin Martyr) of presenting its message as both compatible with and superior to Greco-Roman intellectual traditions.

Joseph Fitzmyer, in his Commentary on Acts, similarly highlights Paul’s strategic use of Greek cultural references, such as quotes from Aratus and Epimenides, to establish common ground while subtly challenging Athenian idolatry.

He even notes: 

Dionysius’ conversion, in this context, is particularly significant. As a member of the Areopagus, his embrace of Christianity represents more than just a personal transformation; it signals a crack in the intellectual and cultural bastion of Greco-Roman paganism. 

However, the broader reaction to Paul’s message was mixed. While some Athenians mocked the concept of resurrection, others expressed curiosity, and a handful, like Dionysius and Damaris, became followers.

The narrative suggests that Paul’s mission in Athens was only moderately successful, but it underscores the universal reach of the Christian message.

Later Church traditions expanded upon the figure of Dionysius the Areopagite, elevating his role in the nascent Christian community of Athens. According to Dionysius, the second-century bishop of Corinth, Dionysius the Areopagite became the first bishop of Athens, a claim recorded by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Ecclesiastical History (3.4.10; 4.23.3). 

However, such claims must be approached with caution from a historical perspective. The notion of individual bishops presiding over specific congregations in the first decades after Jesus’ death is problematic, as this level of ecclesiastical organization likely developed much later.

Most scholars agree that the structured hierarchy of bishops, as evidenced in sources like the Pastoral Epistles or the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, represents a second-century development rather than a feature of the earliest Christian communities.

In other words, the tradition of Dionysius as Athens’ first bishop reflects the later Church’s effort to provide apostolic legitimacy to its leadership structures and local histories, framing its early development in continuity with the age of the apostles.

Over time, Dionysius the Areopagite would also become the subject of a fascinating conflation. By the late 5th century, a Christian Neoplatonic author adopted his name, producing works that deeply influenced medieval Christian theology.

While the historical Dionysius remains an enigmatic figure, we’ll delve into the intriguing legacy of his Neoplatonic namesake in the next section. For now, let’s just say that the real Dionysius probably wasn’t penning treatises on celestial hierarchies in his spare time.

Pseudo-Dionysius and the Neoplatonic Writings

Despite having just a cameo appearance in Acts 17, Dionysius the Areopagite’s name carried enough weight to inspire one of the most enduring literary attributions in early Christian history.

As it turns out the Corpus Areopagiticum — a collection of theological writings including The Divine Names, The Mystical Theology, The Celestial Hierarchy, and The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy — was attributed to him centuries after his mention in the New Testament.

These works explore the nature of God, celestial and ecclesiastical hierarchies, and mystical union with the divine, blending Christian theology with Neoplatonic philosophy. For centuries, the belief that a famous pagan convert from Athens was the author gave them significant authority. 

However, modern scholarship has thoroughly debunked this claim, attributing them instead to an anonymous late antique writer now known as “Pseudo-Dionysius.”

The false attribution of these writings to the historical Dionysius fits into a broader pattern in early Christian literature. As Bart D. Ehrman highlights in his study Forgery and Counterforgery, early Christian authors often adopted the names of apostles or other figures of authority to lend their works greater credibility. 

It was an age where claiming, for instance, Pauline or apostolic authorship was akin to slapping a “bestseller” sticker on your manuscript. The Corpus Areopagiticum exemplifies this trend. These works seemed to demand the name of an authoritative figure to ensure their acceptance and influence within the Church.

The Renaissance scholar Lorenzo Valla was among the earliest to question the authenticity of the Areopagitic works. Other scholars, including Erasmus, offered other evidence firmly establishing the scholarly communis opinio. Let’s take a look at some of it!

The anachronistic nature of the Corpus Areopagiticum is one of the most compelling arguments against its 1st-century origin. The writings are steeped in Neoplatonism, particularly the ideas of Proclus (412-485 C.E.), a pagan philosopher whose works significantly influenced their content.

Another significant issue lies in the depiction of ecclesiastical organization within the writings. The Corpus Areopagiticum describes a highly developed Church structure, with a clear hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons, as well as intricate liturgical practices. This level of institutional organization was unknown in the 1st century. 

Moreover, the presence of the monastic terminology is also a revealing fact. “Dionysius” refers to monks and their roles, yet, we know that monasticism as a developed Christian phenomenon only emerged in the 4th century with figures such as Pachomius and Anthony the Great.

Based on these and other arguments, Paul Rorem, in his Commentary on Pseudo-Dionysius, concludes: 

In the end, the Corpus Areopagiticum reflects the ingenuity of its anonymous author, who combined Christian theology with Neoplatonic philosophy to produce a work of profound influence. However, the real Dionysius the Areopagite of Acts 17 likely had nothing to do with these writings.

Conclusion

The story of Dionysius the Areopagite provides a fascinating lens through which we can explore the intersections of history, theology, and intellectual tradition in the early Christian era.

As a figure mentioned briefly in Acts, Dionysius represents the early Christian mission’s ability to resonate across social, religious, and intellectual boundaries. Later traditions, which elevated him to the status of Athens’ first bishop and linked his name to the Corpus Areopagiticum, reflect the enduring importance of establishing apostolic legitimacy in the evolving identity of the Christian Church.

These traditions, however, reveal more about the Church’s efforts to connect its present to its apostolic past than about the historical Dionysius himself. And who was Dionysisus the Areopagite? Well, beyond the scant information present in Acts, we have no idea. History doesn't always give us what we want, but it sure keeps us coming back for more.

Christian Denominations: A List of All 46 Types of Christianity

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Recently, I noticed an advertisement for a lecture by a young Croatian theologian titled “What Kind of God Do Croats Believe In?”

At first, the title struck me as a bit unsettling, hinting at a close alignment between national identity and Christianity. As someone who appreciates the universalistic nature of Christianity — reflected in Paul’s assertion that “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” — I found the title limiting.

Christianity was built on the principle of inclusivity, intended to transcend borders, ethnicities, and social divides. But as I thought more about the topic, it became clear that this question touches on something more sociologically nuanced: Even within predominantly Catholic Croatia, there exists a rich diversity of Christian denominations. 

Each of these has, in some way, influenced the cultural and historical fabric of our region. In this sense, perhaps the title speaks to a deeper complexity, even if unintended by the lecturer.

In this article, we’ll explore a list of 46 Christian denominations, examining the major branches and the prominent sub-branches within each. These “types of Christianity” aren’t simply isolated traditions but rather interconnected groups that reflect the dynamic evolution of Christian thought and practice. 

While our earlier article covers a deeper examination of each branch of Christianity (including different sub-branches), this article provides a general survey of the most important Christian denominations.

Before diving into our exploration of the different types of Christianity, I highly recommend Bart D. Ehrman’s excellent online course, “Paul and Jesus: The Great Divide.. In this 8-lecture series, Dr. Ehrman offers a scholarly analysis of these two foundational figures in Christian history. Was Paul truly a disciple of Jesus? Would Jesus have embraced Paul’s teachings? Dive into Bart’s course to uncover the answers!

What Are Christian Denominations?

Christianity began humbly as a minor sect within Judaism in the 1st century. At its inception, it offered little indication that it would one day become the most widespread and diverse religion in the world. For the first three centuries, it was largely a community under the radar, practicing in relative obscurity and without any state support.

Yet, over two millennia, Christianity has grown, transformed, and spread into every land and language, becoming the largest and most universal of the world’s religions.

One striking feature of Christianity’s history is the abundance of disagreement that accompanied its expansion, which led to the formation of various Christian denominations. As historians Mary J. Weaver and David Brakke observe in their Introduction to Christianity: 

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

Similarly, Paula Fredriksen observes that the wide range of interpretations in late 1st-century Christianity was a natural consequence of the movement’s success. 

Despite facing early setbacks and unfulfilled expectations, Christianity adapted and expanded beyond the initial message of an imminent end. Almost instinctively, the early Church updated its teachings, reshaping its traditions about Jesus to remain relevant and meaningful to each new generation.

It’s from this adaptive nature of “mischievous superstition” (to borrow Tacitus’ infamous words) that different Christian denominations emerged, each one preserving elements of the tradition while interpreting and reinterpreting them for changing times and contexts.

So, how many denominations of Christianity are there? The answer might surprise you! While exact numbers vary, some estimates suggest there are more than 45,000 distinct Christian denominations worldwide.

A “denomination,” as defined by Merriam-Webster, is “a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices.” Given the range of beliefs and worship styles within Christianity, it’s no wonder that so many distinct denominations exist.

In contrast, a non-denominational church isn’t formally related to any established Christian denomination. Furthermore, it often emphasizes individual interpretation of Scripture and a more flexible approach to worship and liturgy. 

This independent nature of the non-denominational church opens space for a wide variety of beliefs and practices (focused, of course, on Jesus) which further contributes to the diversity within modern Christianity.

Finally, while it’s impossible to cover all 45,000 Christian denominations in a single blog post, we can highlight some of the most impactful groups that have shaped the Christian tradition and Western civilization. These denominations are grouped within the major branches of Christianity, each representing a rich tradition of faith, practice, and historical significance. Let’s take a look!

List of 46 Christian Denominations

#1 –  Catholic Church 

#1.1 –  Roman Catholic Church
#1.2 – Eastern Catholic Churches
#1.2 (a) – Maronite Catholic Church
#1.2 (b) – Melkite Greek Catholic Church
#1.2 (c) – Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
#1.2 (d) – Syro-Malabar Catholic Church

#2 – Eastern Orthodoxy

#2 (a) – Greek Orthodox Church
#2 (b) – Russian Orthodox Church
#2 (c) – Serbian Orthodox Church
#2 (d) – Bulgarian Orthodox Church
#2 (e) – Romanian Orthodox Church
#2 (f) – Georgian Orthodox Church
#2 (g) – Antiochian Orthodox Church
#2 (h) Orthodox Church in America 

#3 – Protestantism

#3.1 – Lutheranism
#3.1 (a) – Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
#3.1 (b) – Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
#3.1 (c) – Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
#3.2 – Calvinism
#3.2 (a) – Presbyterian Church
# 3.2 (b) – Reformed Church in America
#3.2 (c) – Christian Reformed Church
#3.3 – Anglicanism
#3.3 (a) – Church of England
#3.3 (b) – Episcopal Church (U.S.)
#3.3 (c) – Anglican Church in North America
#3.4 – Baptists
#3.4 (a) – Southern Baptist Convention
#3.4 (b) – American Baptist Churches U.S.A.
#3.4 (c) – National Baptist Convention
#3.5 – Methodism
#3.5 (a) – United Methodist Church
#3.5 (b) – African Methodist Episcopal Church
#3.5 (c) – Free Methodist Church
#3.6 – Pentecostalism
#3.6 (a) – Assemblies of God
#3.6 (b) – Church of God
#3.6 (c) – United Pentecostal Church International
#3.6 (d) – International Church of the Foursquare Gospel
#3.7 – Other Notable Protestant Movements
#3.7 (a) – Anabaptists
#3.8 – Restorationists
#3.8 (a) – Churches of Christ
#3.8 (b) – Disciples of Christ
#3.8 (c) – Christian Church
#3.8 (d) – Adventists
#3.8 (e) – Quakers 

#4 – Oriental Orthodoxy

#4.1 – Coptic Orthodox Church
#4.2 – Armenian Orthodox Church
#4.3 – Ethiopian Orthodox Church
#4.4 – Syriac Orthodox Church
#4.5 – Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church

#5 - Assyrian Church of the East 

#5.1 – Assyrian Church of the East
#5.2 – Ancient Church of the East
#5.3 – Chaldean Syrian Church

Roman Catholicism

Roman Catholicism is the world's largest Christian denomination with more than 1 billion members! 

The Catholic Church traditionally claims St. Peter as its first bishop, asserting an unbroken line of leadership from the apostles to the present. However, historians today observe that Roman Catholicism gradually took shape over several centuries, particularly in the 4th and 5th centuries. 

This period saw the rise of the papal office and the formalization of many doctrines that continue to define the Church. Key theological disputes about the nature of Christ, the Trinity, and the relationship between Christ’s divinity and humanity were addressed through four influential ecumenical councils between 325 (Nicaea) and 451 C.E. (Chalcedon). 

These councils were instrumental in defining Christian “orthodoxy,” and their conclusions continue to be accepted by the majority of Christians, including Roman Catholics.

A defining characteristic of Roman Catholicism is its hierarchical structure, with the Pope as the supreme spiritual authority. The papacy, which developed significantly during the early centuries, is seen by Catholics as the continuation of Peter’s role, with each pope viewed as his successor.

As the ”The Catechism of the Catholic Church” explains: “The Church is apostolic. She is built on a lasting foundation: 'the twelve apostles of the Lamb.' She is indestructible (cf Mt 16:18). She is upheld infallibly in the truth: Christ governs her through Peter and the other apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops.”

This belief in papal primacy is central to Catholic identity, setting it apart from other Christian denominations that may respect but do not formally acknowledge the Pope’s authority.

Distinctive practices also mark Roman Catholicism. The seven sacraments (baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, anointing of the sick, holy orders, and matrimony) are central to Catholic worship and theology.

These sacraments are seen as means of receiving God’s grace and play a vital role in the spiritual life of Catholics, from birth to death. In his highly influential book Introduction to Christianity, Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) notes: 

Catholicism also places significant emphasis on Tradition alongside Scripture. Unlike some other Christian denominations, which rely solely on the Bible, the Catholic Church upholds both Scripture and Tradition as sources of authority.

Richard P. McBrien explains the Catholic view on Scripture and Tradition: 

Globally, Roman Catholicism has played an unparalleled role in shaping Western civilization and continues to have a significant presence on every continent. From education to social services, its institutions have been and continue to be of paramount importance!

Eastern Orthodoxy

In the 11th century, relations between Christianity in the East and West were severed — a divide that remains to this day. This schism between the two earliest forms of Christianity has persisted for more than a thousand years. While the symbolic date of the split is 1054, like many separations, it was the result of centuries of growing estrangement. 

And, much like other “divorces,” it was a painful experience, representing one of the more sobering chapters in Christianity’s history.

As Tim Dowley notes in A Brief Introduction to Christianity:

Unlike Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy doesn’t accept the Pope’s authority. Instead, it views him as one bishop among equals rather than a supreme authority over the entire Church. However, as Timothy Ware argues:

Central to the Eastern Orthodox faith is the liturgy, a rich, sensory experience that immerses worshippers in a sacred space of prayer, chant, and ritual. The Divine Liturgy, especially the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, is the focal point of Orthodox worship, emphasizing communal prayer and a sense of divine mystery.

Furthermore, icons play an especially significant role in Orthodox spirituality. Orthodox believers venerate icons not as idols but as a means of communicating with the saints and with Christ, who are depicted in these holy images. 

The use of icons is rooted in the theology of the Incarnation. By becoming human, Eastern Orthodox theologians argue, Christ sanctified material creation, making it a worthy vessel for divine representation. 

Orthodoxy also emphasizes the sacraments, known as “holy mysteries,” as essential means through which believers receive God’s grace. Ware explains: “Church and sacraments are the means appointed by God whereby we may acquire the sanctifying Spirit and be transformed into the divine likeness.”

Geographically, Eastern Orthodoxy, as one of the Christian denominations, remains prominent in Eastern Europe, Russia, and parts of the Middle East, where it has had a deep cultural influence. From the Byzantine Empire to the Ottoman occupation, Orthodoxy has preserved its theological and liturgical traditions despite centuries of political changes and challenges.

As we continue exploring the major types of Christianity, our focus now shifts to Protestantism.

While some Eastern Orthodox theologians might classify Protestantism as one of the “sects of Christianity,” its impact and historical significance (particularly in shaping Western Christian thought and culture) is undeniable. Protestant tradition stands as a distinct and influential force within the broader Christian landscape. 

Protestantism

The roots of Protestantism lie in a fascinating interplay of crisis and vitality within the Catholic Church at the end of the 15th century. As John van Engen notes in his insightful study, the Church on the eve of the Reformation displayed seemingly contradictory features: Widespread corruption alongside vigorous renewal.

On the one hand, frustrations over clerical abuses — anticlerical sentiment, the buying and selling of church offices (simony), and the morally questionable lifestyles of some clergy — fueled discontent. A prime example of such decadence is Pope Alexander VI (r. 1492–1503), infamous for his nepotism, lavish lifestyle, and numerous scandals, including fathering several children while in office.

At the same time, however, there were unmistakable signs of spiritual vitality: Fervent lay piety, grassroots reform movements, and a flourishing culture of personal piety. The late medieval laity, for example, invested massively in religion by paying for churches and their upkeep, donating masses, and financing urban preachers!

This paradoxical mix of corruption and reform created fertile ground for the emergence of Protestantism. Not born of religious apathy, the Reformation, von Engen argues, arose from a climate of intense religiosity and widespread concern for the Church’s future.

Into this charged atmosphere stepped Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk whose theological insights and bold actions would ignite the Reformation. The spark came in 1517, when Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg, challenging the sale of indulgences.

At the Leipzig Disputation in June 1519, Luther took a revolutionary step, declaring that scripture alone (sola scriptura), not popes or councils, held ultimate authority for Christians. This assertion, while essentially theological, had profound institutional implications, undermining the Church's hierarchy.

Luther's defiance reached a fever pitch in 1520 when the pope threatened him with excommunication. Instead of backing down, Luther doubled down by publishing three landmark treatises: 

When summoned to recant his views at the Diet of Worms in April 1521, Luther famously refused, declaring: “Here I stand, I can do no other.” 

Condemned as a heretic by Charles V and declared an outlaw, Luther went into hiding but continued his work, translating the Bible into German and building the foundations of the Protestant movement.

At its core, Protestantism introduced key theological principles that distinguished it from Roman Catholicism. Chief among these was the concept of “sola scriptura,” the idea that the Bible is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice.

Additionally, “sola fide,” the belief that salvation comes by faith alone and not by works, struck at the heart of Catholic sacramental theology. Protestants also rejected the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (a belief that the substance of bread and wine is changed by God’s power into the substance of Christ’s body and his blood during communion).

Protestantism, however, was far from monolithic. From the Lutheran churches in Germany to the Calvinist Reformed traditions in Switzerland and the Anglican Church in England, the movement fragmented into numerous branches, each with its emphasis on theology, governance, and worship.

This diversity has continued to expand over centuries. A glimpse into the Pew Research Center’s survey reveals thousands of different Christian denominations (including non-denominational churches) — a reality that Martin Luther probably couldn’t even imagine!

This makes Protestantism one of the most dynamic and varied types of Christianity in the world today. Its emphasis on personal faith, scripture, and reform has left an indelible mark on Christian history, as well as on the development of Western society and culture.

Oriental Orthodoxy

Complex Christological controversies of the early 5th century are the place to look for the emergence of Oriental Orthodoxy as one of the major Christian denominations. 

As it turns out, the pivotal moment came at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE, where a majority of the Church adopted the Chalcedonian Definition which argues that Christ exists in two natures, divine and human, united in one person.

However, “as with the Creed of Nicaea one hundred and twenty-five years before,” Leo D. Davis notes, “the definition of Chalcedon was not the end but the intensification of controversy.” 

The Oriental Orthodox Churches, for instance, rejected this formulation, adhering instead to miaphysitism. This theological position holds that Christ's divinity and humanity are united in one nature without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation.

This distinction led to what Timothy Ware labels as the “first stage in the separation” within the main body of Christians living in what was, back then, the eastern part of the Roman Empire. 

Furthermore, events of the 5th century carried political and cultural associations. The Oriental Orthodox Churches often existed in regions on the periphery of the Byzantine Empire, such as Egypt, Armenia, Ethiopia, and Syria, where local populations resisted Byzantine dominance.

The liturgical practices of Oriental Orthodoxy are very characteristic and reflect a rich mixture of ancient Christian traditions and local cultural expressions. The liturgies are often characterized by elaborate and symbolic rituals, long prayers and the use of ancient liturgical languages, such as Ge'ez in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

The Oriental Orthodox Churches also emphasize the sacramental life, with a particular focus on the Eucharist, which is regarded as the real presence of Christ. Additionally, the veneration of saints and the use of iconography, though less pronounced than in Eastern Orthodoxy, remain important elements of their devotional practices.

The Assyrian Church of the East

As we approach the end of our journey into the world of Christian denominations, we turn to the Assyrian Church of the East — a tradition with ancient roots and a remarkable story. Emerging from the early Christian communities of the East, the Church claims its origins from the apostolic age and the legendary account of St. Thomas' missionary work in the East.

By the 4th century, this community had established itself in Mesopotamia, far from the political and theological epicenters of Rome and Constantinople. For instance, the Church of the East was well established in the Persian capital, Seleucia-Ctesiphon.

However, this process was by no means easy. As Christine Chaillot explains in her book The Assyrian Church of the East: History and Geography: 

Nevertheless, the Church survived and, over time, became known as the “Church of the East,” shaped by its distinct cultural and historical context.

Theologically, the Assyrian Church of the East is best known for its adherence to dyophysitism, the belief that Christ’s divine and human natures are distinct yet united in one person. 

While this type of Christianity maintains that these natures are united in one person, its Christology has been perceived as attributing greater independence to Christ’s human and divine aspects. This led to criticisms from Chalcedonian Christians, who interpreted it as a separation of the two natures into two persons, though this isn’t the Church’s official teaching.

Furthermore, the Assyrian Church of the East famously rejected the Council of Ephesus (431 C.E.), though not primarily due to doctrinal disagreements. Instead, the Church objected to the procedural irregularities surrounding the council, particularly the hurried manner in which decisions were made and the lack of representation from key theological voices of the East.

Despite these procedural concerns, the Church’s rejection of Ephesus has historically been misinterpreted by subsequent generations, leading to its characterization as “Nestorian.” This label emerged from the association of the Church with the teachings of Nestorius, a theologian condemned at Ephesus for his views on the relationship between Christ’s divine and human natures.

However, contemporary scholarship has revealed this misinterpretation. As Sebastian P. Brock notes in his article: 

Liturgy in the Assyrian Church of the East is a defining feature of its identity. The Church uses Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, as its liturgical language, connecting its worshippers to the language spoken during the time of Christ.

Today, the Assyrian Church of the East has a relatively small but dedicated following, with communities in the Middle East, India, and a growing diaspora in the Americas, Europe, and Australia.

Despite centuries of persecution, including significant challenges in modern times, the Church has remained steadfast in preserving its unique theological and liturgical traditions.

Conclusion

Reflecting on the question posed by the Croatian theologian I mentioned in the introduction (“What Kind of God Do Croats Believe In?”), it becomes clear that the answer can’t be confined to a single narrative or perspective — not even in Croatia where most of the people identify as Roman Catholics! 

As this exploration of Christian denominations has shown, Christianity itself is a tapestry of traditions, shaped by centuries of theological debate, cultural diversity, and historical challenges.

From the towering structure of Roman Catholicism, with its papal authority and sacramental life, to the mysticism and liturgical beauty of Eastern Orthodoxy, the theological precision of Oriental Orthodoxy, the reforming zeal of Protestantism, and the steadfast perseverance of the Assyrian Church of the East, each type of Christianity offers a unique window into the enduring adaptability and universality of this religion.

And what about the lecture by the young Croatian theologian? Well, I won’t be able to attend, but I remain both intrigued and skeptical about its outcome. The title raises questions that paradoxically seem at once compelling and limiting.

All 23 Branches of Christianity & Their Differences (Plus Timeline!)

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

With as many as twenty-three branches of Christianity, it's easy to get their beliefs, rituals, and scriptures confused.  There's a lot of diversity!

In Lost Christianities, Bart D. Ehrman observes:

"It may be difficult to imagine a religious phenomenon more diverse than modern-day Christianity. There are Roman Catholic missionaries in developing countries who devote themselves to voluntary poverty for the sake of others and evangelical televangelists who run twelve-step programs to ensure financial success. There are New England Presbyterians and Appalachian snake handlers. There are Greek Orthodox priests committed to the liturgical service of God, replete with set prayers, incantations, and incense, and fundamentalist preachers who view high-church liturgy as a demonic invention."

However, this only begins to hint at the vast diversity among the branches of Christianity. It’s a paradox, really: At the center of each branch is the same figure, Jesus of Nazareth, yet there are often striking disagreements about fundamental issues such as his true nature, the authority of the Bible, and the means of salvation.

Christianity has evolved into numerous branches over the past two millennia, each shaped by unique historical, cultural, and theological developments. Today, it encompasses everything from the highly structured traditions of the Roman Catholic Church to the varied and vibrant expressions of Protestant denominations, which are some of the most well-known branches of Christianity in the U.S.

To truly understand this complex religion, one must first grasp the differences among its primary branches: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Oriental Orthodoxy, and the Assyrian Church of the East. These major traditions carry a unique legacy, with sub-branches that further showcase Christianity’s rich variety.

This article will explore the major branches of Christianity, thus providing insights into their foundational beliefs, historical backgrounds, and distinctive characteristics. Along the way, we’ll highlight key differences and map out the intricate landscape of Christian denominations that continue to shape the religious world today.

However, before we begin, I want to invite you to check out Bart D. Ehrman’s excellent course “Paul and Jesus: The Great Divide.” These two pivotal figures in the history of Christianity shared some similarities but they differ on some big and important issues. Check Dr. Ehrman’s course and find out more! 

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!) 

Five Major Branches of Christianity

The following branches of Christianity have been chosen due to their contemporary popularity (based on the number of members) and historical significance. This categorization, of course, could have been different and I fully acknowledge a certain element of subjectivity!

#1 - Roman Catholic Church: Key Features

With more than 1 billion members, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination. It claims its origins in the apostolic era, with roots traditionally believed to date back to St. Peter, whom Catholics consider the first Pope. 

Over centuries, Catholicism evolved through theological debates, councils, and cultural exchanges, becoming a deeply influential institution in the Western world. Central to its identity are core beliefs in the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the authority of Scripture and Tradition.

Undoubtedly, Jesus of Nazareth holds a pivotal role in the belief system of the Catholic Church. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains: “At the heart of catechesis, we find, in essence, a Person, the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, the only Son from the Father... who suffered and died for us and who now, after rising, is living with us forever.”

Moreover, the Pope, as the Bishop of Rome, serves as the highest authority, symbolizing unity within the global Catholic community. His role, along with that of the bishops, is seen as essential in maintaining doctrinal continuity.

Furthermore, sacraments are at the heart of Catholic worship, with seven key sacraments — Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, Matrimony, and Holy Orders — acting as vital rites through which believers receive grace and connect with God.

In his book The Light of Christ: An Introduction to Catholicism, Thomas J. White explains:

The Eucharist, or Holy Communion, is especially significant, as Catholics believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, where bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ. Additionally, the Catholic Bible has 73 books, including seven Deutero-canonical books not found in the Protestant Bible. 

Moreover, Catholics view salvation as a journey that involves faith, grace received through the sacraments, and good works, which serve as expressions of faith and adherence to God’s commandments.

Finally, in contrast to the Protestant tradition, Catholic beliefs are grounded not only in the Bible but in the traditions and writings of the Church Fathers such as Jerome and Augustine. Richard P. McBrien explains the relationship between the Scripture/Bible and Tradition in Catholicism:

#2 - Eastern Orthodox Church

In our exploration of the main branches of Christianity, we come to the Eastern Orthodox Church. It’s one of the oldest branches of Christianity and goes back to the early Christian communities of the Eastern Roman Empire, particularly in regions such as Asia Minor, Greece, and the Levant.

While the Church initially shared a unified structure with Western Christianity, theological and political differences led to a formal split in 1054, known as the Great Schism. The divide was largely fueled by disputes over papal authority, the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed, and various liturgical practices.

In his book History of Christianity, Paul Johnson notes: 

Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, which is united under the Pope, the Eastern Orthodox Church is organized into a communion of autocephalous (independent) churches, each led by its patriarch or bishop. 

These include the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, and other patriarchates, which are united by shared beliefs and practices but maintain administrative independence.

Theologically, the Eastern Orthodox Church emphasizes the mystery of the divine and the transformative journey of salvation through theosis, or becoming one with God, a process realized through prayer, participation in the sacraments, and a life of virtue. 

In his book The Orthodox Church, Timothy Ware notes that Orthodox worship engages the senses in a profoundly dramatic and theologically rich way. While the fundamental elements of the Eucharistic celebration mirror those of the Roman liturgy, the Orthodox style — marked by its grandeur and unique aesthetic — is unmistakable, even in the humblest and simplest of churches.

The Orthodox liturgy immerses worshippers in a rich sensory experience. Ministers are dressed in ornate vestments, hymns are resonantly chanted, incense and candles are generously used, and processions and prostrations are continuous movements. Every element engages the senses, creating worship practices that feel deeply physical.

While Protestant worship may appeal primarily to the intellect and Catholic liturgy often to the heart, Orthodox worship distinctly involves the whole body. I still remember my first experience entering an Orthodox Church at age sixteen, captivated by the reverence and mystery that filled the air.

Finally, icons, revered as “windows into heaven,” play a central role in Orthodox spirituality. These sacred images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints are believed to convey divine grace and are used in both public worship and private devotion.

As we continue our exploration of the major branches of Christianity, our focus now turns to the Protestant tradition — a richly diverse tapestry of beliefs that emerged with the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.

#3 - Protestantism: Historical Emergence and Key Features

As noted, Protestantism emerged in the early 16th century as a significant movement within Western Christianity, initially sparked by figures such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Huldrych Zwingli. 

Dissatisfaction with various practices and teachings within the Roman Catholic Church, particularly in relation to the sale of indulgences and the authority of the papacy, prompted the so-named Reformers to call for a return to what they saw as a purer faith, more closely aligned with the Sacred Scriptures.

As Ulinka Rublack explains in The Oxford Handbook of the Protestant Reformation:

In other words, the Protestant Reformations (plural!) were marked by a desire to break free from perceived ecclesiastical corruption and to re-emphasize the role of individual faith. It set off a wave of theological and cultural shifts across Europe, fundamentally altering the landscape of Christianity.

A key characteristic of Protestant belief is the principle of “sola scriptura,” or “Scripture alone,” which asserts that the Bible is the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice, rather than Church tradition or ecclesiastical hierarchy.

Consequently, unlike the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church, many Protestant groups embrace a decentralized model, where individual congregations often hold significant autonomy.

Central to Protestant theology is the concept of salvation by grace through faith, a belief often summarized by the principle of “sola fide,” or “faith alone.” According to this view, salvation is a gift from God, accessible through faith in Jesus Christ, rather than through any human works or intermediaries.

One of the many places where Martin Luther asserted his “sola fide” convictions was in The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, published in 1520. In it, he writes: 

Protestant teachings also emphasize the “priesthood of all believers.” It’s a doctrine that stresses the individual’s direct relationship with God, without needing mediation through priests or saints.

As we’ll see in the rest of this article, over time, Protestantism gave rise to a wide range of denominations and movements, each interpreting foundational principles such as “sola scriptura” and “sola fide" within distinct cultural and theological frameworks. However, before that, we need to take a look at two major branches of Christianity that we haven’t covered yet!

#4 - Oriental Orthodoxy: A Blast from the Past

Oriental Orthodoxy is a branch of Christianity that traces its roots to the earliest Christian communities in regions such as Egypt, Syria, and Armenia. 

The defining moment for this tradition occurred at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 C.E., where a theological divide emerged between those who accepted the Council’s definition of Christ as having two natures (divine and human) and those who rejected it.

Leo D. Davis sketches the aftermath of this council:

The group that would later form the Oriental Orthodox Churches embraced what is often called miaphysitism, the belief in the unified nature of Christ, where his humanity and divinity are united without division or confusion. 

This theological stance, distinct from the “two natures” doctrine of Chalcedonian Christianity, led to the formation of separate ecclesiastical structures and the eventual development of a distinct Oriental Orthodox identity.

Oriental Orthodoxy includes several ancient Christian communities, such as the Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, and the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church of India.

Each one maintains its own liturgical, linguistic, and cultural traditions while sharing core theological beliefs and sacraments. For instance, let’s take the Canon of Scripture. The Oriental Orthodox Churches each follow distinct Biblical canons shaped by their unique histories and cultures. 

While all include books from the Septuagint, additional texts vary: For example, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has the most extensive canon, incorporating books such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees, while the Armenian and Syriac Orthodox canons are closer to the Eastern Orthodox Bible.

Despite their doctrinal differences with Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, Oriental Orthodox churches view themselves as custodians of the apostolic faith, preserving ancient teachings and practices that predate the divisions of the 5th century.

Today, with approximately 60 million members, Oriental Orthodoxy continues to thrive in its historical homelands and within diaspora communities, thus offering a unique perspective within Christianity and proving once again the rich tapestry of the most popular religion in the world.

#5 - Assyrian Church of the East:

The Assyrian Church of the East, often associated with the term “Nestorian,” traces its origins to early Christian communities in the Persian Empire. The church’s defining moment came in the fifth century when it rejected the Council of Ephesus in 431 C.E., primarily due to theological disagreements over the nature of Christ.

Nestorius was an Antiochene (Syrian) monk who became archbishop of Constantinople in 428 C.E. and whose preachings on the radical separation of Logos (Word) and humanity gave rise to the movement called Nestorianism that emphasized the humanity of Jesus.

Henry Chadwick, in his book East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church, provides the historical background of the controversy that culminated in the 5th century: 

Paul Johnson highlights the intensity of polemics and disputes that were central to 5th-century church politics:

So, back then it wasn’t always that fun to be a Christian! In any case, the Assyrian Church eventually embraced a dyophysite Christology (the theological study of the nature and person of Christ), which holds that Christ’s divine and human natures are distinct yet united in one person. 

This belief set it apart from the Roman and Byzantine churches, which upheld the doctrine of the hypostatic union — Christ’s two natures fully united in one essence.

Although later scholarship has shown that the term “Nestorian” oversimplifies the church’s Christology, it remains a label commonly associated with this tradition.

The Assyrian Church of the East developed a unique liturgical and theological identity that reflects its cultural and geographical heritage. Its worship centers around the Holy Qurbana, a term meaning “offering” in Syriac, which refers to the Eucharist. 

Consequently, liturgical texts are primarily in Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, and are part of a rich tradition that has been preserved and transmitted over centuries, even amidst significant historical challenges.

Today, the Assyrian Church of the East remains a small (around 400,000 members) but a significant branch of Christianity, with communities in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and a growing diaspora in North America, Europe, and Australia.

While it has faced persecution and displacement, especially in recent decades, the church continues to preserve its distinct theological and liturgical heritage.

After a careful examination of the key features within the five major branches of Christianity, it's time to immerse ourselves in the different sub-branches. As there are no sub-branches of the Roman Catholic church, we'll begin with the Protestant tradition!

Branches of Christianity Within the Protestant Tradition

The Catholic Church of the Late Middle Ages differed significantly from its form in Late Antiquity. It was structured as a hierarchy led by the pope, with each bishop overseeing his diocese. Additionally, the Church amassed considerable wealth and wielded secular power, which was especially evident in the pope’s governance over the Papal States.

The clergy maintained a distinct separation from the laity in lifestyle, legal standing, attire, and language, with Latin reserved for the clergy, while the laity spoke in the vernacular. Furthermore, laypeople typically received communion only once a year and under the species of bread alone, whereas the clergy frequently took communion, receiving both bread and wine.

The famous Italian poet Petrarca sharply criticized the Church's opulence and secular entanglements, writing:

However, as Paul Johnson notes, by the end of the 15th century, “it was clear that the old medieval [Catholic] Church, the total society dating from Carolingian times, was breaking up.” This rupture culminated with the emergence of Martin Luther, an Augustinian friar who reshaped the religious landscape of Europe! 

In 1517, Luther posted his 95 theses in Latin on the bulletin board of his university in Wittenberg, Germany. Within a year, he re-established the church in Wittenberg along distinctly Protestant lines.

Although Luther initially envisioned a unified Church faithful to what he saw as the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, Protestantism soon split into several branches of Christianity, each becoming its independent denomination. Some of these are among the most well-established branches of Christianity in the U.S. In what follows, we’ll take a closer look at the most significant of these branches. 

#6 - Lutheranism

Central to Lutheran theology is the doctrine of justification by faith alone (“sola fide”), which asserts that salvation is achieved through faith in Jesus Christ rather than through good works or church-mediated sacraments. Luther also emphasized “sola scriptura,” the belief that the Bible is the ultimate authority in matters of faith, challenging the Catholic reliance on both Scripture and Church Tradition.

Lutheranism also developed a simplified liturgy, with services held in the vernacular to ensure accessibility for all believers. Its emphasis on congregational singing and biblical preaching transformed worship practices across Europe.

Lutheran Churches of the Early Modern Era (17th and 18th centuries) engaged with contemporary culture in a specific way. Thomas Kaufmann explains: 

Structurally, Lutheran churches today are typically organized under regional synods rather than a central hierarchy, reflecting Lutheranism’s early advocacy for a more decentralized church model.

Today, Lutheranism remains a prominent Christian tradition, especially in Germany, Scandinavia, and the United States, with the total number of adherents estimated between 70 to 90 million worldwide. 

#7 - Calvinism

Calvinism, named after the theologian John Calvin and also known as Reformed Christianity, is a major branch of Protestant Christianity. It emerged during the Reformation in the 16th century, particularly through Calvin’s influential work in Geneva, where he established a theocratic government and reformed the city’s religious practices.

Calvin’s writings, especially Institutes of the Christian Religion, provided a systematic theological foundation that shaped Protestant thought across Europe, influencing countries including Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, and Scotland.

In Protestantism: A Very Short Introduction, Mark A. Noll notes:

Moreover, Calvinism’s theological framework is famously articulated in the “Five Points of Calvinism” (often remembered by the acronym TULIP): Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.

In addition to its theological features, Calvinism places a strong focus on simple and scripture-centered worship, often characterized by minimalistic services that emphasize preaching and hymn singing. Its influence, as Max Weber famously proposed, has been significant in shaping Protestant ethics, particularly in promoting values such as hard work, discipline, and stewardship.

In the centuries after Calvin’s death, his ideas spread widely in regions such as Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Scotland, and continue to influence Reformed churches around the world today, particularly in North America and parts of Europe. Today, there are around 80 million Calvinists in the world! 

#8 - Anglicanism: Between Lutheranism and the Catholic Tradition

Anglicanism emerged in the 16th century as a distinct branch of Christianity amid England’s complex religious and political landscape. The Church of England’s official separation from the Roman Catholic Church, initiated by King Henry VIII, was driven initially by political motivations rather than theological reform. 

However, under subsequent monarchs and influenced by Protestant reformers, Anglicanism developed its theological and liturgical identity. 

The English Reformation was formalized by the Act of Supremacy (1534), which recognized the monarch as the Supreme Head of the Church of England, and by the establishment of the Book of Common Prayer under Thomas Cranmer, which became central to Anglican worship.

Anglicanism’s foundational beliefs strike a balance between Catholic and Protestant traditions, often referred to as the “middle way.” Anglicans affirm core Christian doctrines, such as the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and salvation through grace, while emphasizing both Scripture and tradition as sources of authority.

In The Oxford History of Anglicanism, Anthony Milton provides the essence of this branch of Christianity noting: 

Anglicanism’s unique blend of tradition and adaptability has allowed it to expand globally (around 85 million members), forming a diverse communion of churches united by common worship and the historic episcopate rather than strict doctrinal conformity.

#9 - Baptists: Another Branch of (Protestant) Christianity

The Baptist tradition emerged in the early 17th century as part of the broader Protestant movement, initially among English Separatists who sought greater freedom in worship and governance. Rejecting the established Church of England, early Baptists advocated for a return to New Testament principles, emphasizing believers' baptism (baptism only of professing Christians) rather than infant baptism, which they viewed as unscriptural.

Mark A. Noll notes that “the rise of the Baptists was particularly significant since they represented the sharpest challenge in England to the Christendom ideal. Baptists included both Calvinists, who stressed divine sovereignty in salvation, and Arminians, who followed the path of Jacob Arminius in giving more weight to the human role in redemption.”

Foundational to Baptist theology is the belief in “soul competency” and the “priesthood of all believers,” which asserts that each individual can directly relate to God without ecclesiastical intermediaries. Baptists also adhere to “sola scriptura” (“scripture alone”) as the ultimate authority in matters of faith, with local congregations exercising full autonomy in governance.

Additionally, Baptists observe the Lord’s Supper as an ordinance rather than a sacrament, viewing it as a symbolic act of remembrance rather than a means of imparting grace. According to the Baptist World Alliance website, there are more than 50 million Baptist Christians in the world today! 

#10 - Methodists: A Revival Branch of (Protestant) Christianity

Methodism began in the 18th century as a revival movement within the Church of England, led by John Wesley and his brother Charles Wesley. Concerned with the perceived spiritual complacency of the time, the Wesleys emphasized a personal, heartfelt faith and practical holiness, organizing small groups for prayer, Bible study, and mutual accountability.

Referring to the importance of John Wesley, Mark A. Noll asserts:

Methodism spread rapidly across England and, later, the American colonies, where it became a significant force in the First and Second Great Awakenings, fostering a passionate, evangelical approach to Christianity. 

At the heart of Methodist belief is the concept of “grace” — understood as prevenient (grace preceding faith), justifying (grace in salvation), and sanctifying (grace that leads to personal holiness). Methodists uphold “sola scriptura” as the foundation of faith, while also valuing tradition, reason, and personal experience.

Unlike many Protestant traditions, Methodism emphasizes a process of sanctification, or spiritual growth, where believers strive toward perfection in love through God’s grace. Distinctive practices include open-air preaching, an emphasis on hymns (many composed by Charles Wesley), and small group fellowship.

In his scholarly article “The Methodist Doctrine of Christian Perfection”, Joseph W. Cunningham explains:

Finally, Methodists’ commitment to social justice, reflected in its historical involvement in abolitionism, education, and healthcare, has also been central to its identity and mission worldwide. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “The World Methodist Council”, an association of churches in the Methodist tradition, comprises more than 40.5 million Methodists in 138 countries.

#11 - Pentecostalism

With Pentecostalism, we come to the last branch of Christianity within the Protestant tradition. At least, the last we’ll cover in this article. Needless to say, there are other important branches, but they are beyond our limits. 

Pentecostalism emerged in the early 20th century as part of a revivalist movement within Christianity, originating primarily in the United States. The movement is often traced back to the “Azusa Street Revival” of 1906 in Los Angeles, led by William J. Seymour, where worshippers reported experiencing spiritual gifts, such as speaking in tongues (glossolalia), healing, and prophecy.

This branch of Christianity in the U.S., emphasizes a personal and direct experience with the Holy Spirit. Foundational beliefs include salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, the authority of the Bible, and the expectation of the imminent return of Christ.

However, what makes Pentecostals truly different from other branches of Christianity is their particular focus on the “gifts of the Spirit” (charismata), especially speaking in tongues, healing, and miracles, which are seen as the signs of the Spirit’s presence and activity.

Finally, Pentecostal churches generally uphold two ordinances: Water baptism by immersion and communion, viewing these as symbolic rather than sacramental. 

Today, Pentecostalism continues to thrive globally, especially in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

As of 2010, there were more than 92 million Pentecostals in the world, according to the collection of scholarly essays titled Spirit and Power: The Growth and Global Impact of Pentecostalism.

Branches of Christianity Within the Eastern Orthodoxy

Beginning in 1054, Eastern Orthodoxy represented the second major stream of Christianity. However, unlike Roman Catholicism, and due to different organizational and social causes, it never developed as the unified (one) Church. In what follows, we’ll take a brief look at the couple of notable branches of Christianity that emerged within the Eastern Orthodox tradition.

#12 - Greek Orthodox Church

The Greek Orthodox Church, one of the oldest Christian traditions, traces its origins to the early apostolic communities in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, particularly within Greece and Asia Minor. Historically, it has been closely tied to the Byzantine Empire, with significant influence from the Greek language and culture shaping its theology, liturgy, and ecclesiastical structure.

After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Greek Orthodoxy continued to thrive under Ottoman rule, where it maintained a strong cultural identity and preserved Greek heritage through its monasteries and liturgical life.

Today, the Greek Orthodox Church is prominent in Greece, Cyprus, and parts of the Eastern Mediterranean, with diaspora communities around the world, including the United States. In his book The Greek Orthodox Church in America, Alexander Kitroeff notes: 

Greek Orthodox worship is characterized by a deeply traditional liturgy that emphasizes the mystery of the divine. The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom forms the core of its worship, featuring elaborate chants, incense, icon veneration, and processions.

Greek Orthodoxy also emphasizes fasting, frequent participation in the sacraments (especially the Eucharist), and the annual observance of a liturgical calendar that focuses on the major feast days, especially Pascha (Easter).

#13 - Russian Orthodox Church

As the largest branch of Christianity within the Eastern tradition, the Russian Orthodox Church developed its distinct identity following the Christianization of Kyivan Rus’ (the first East Slavic state) in 988 C.E., an event traditionally attributed to Prince Vladimir.

His importance extends beyond mere Christianization. In A Concise History of the Russian Orthodox Church, Neil Kent notes:

Following the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Moscow began to see itself as the “Third Rome,” a concept symbolizing its role as the spiritual successor to Byzantine Orthodoxy. 

Over time, the Russian Orthodox Church became intertwined with the Russian state in a relationship that historian George Ostrogotsky called “the caesaropapism”). This symbiotic relationship has continued to shape its identity, especially during periods of both czarist and Soviet rule.

Russian Orthodox worship is renowned for its solemn and elaborate liturgies, often held in richly adorned churches filled with icons and frescoes. The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is central, with distinctive elements such as extended chanting, congregational singing, and the use of Old Church Slavonic.

This liturgical language, rooted in the early Slavic Christian tradition, highlights the cultural identity of the Russian Orthodox Church and reveals a deep relationship between the Eastern Orthodoxy and the Russian national identity. 

Moreover, the veneration of icons also plays a central role in Russian spirituality, and Orthodox icons in Russia have developed a unique aesthetic, heavily influenced by Russian artistic traditions.

The Church itself claims to have about 80 million members, but that’s almost certainly an overestimate. The true number is around 40 million with perhaps 4 to 7 million practicing believers (those who regularly attend church services).

#14 - Serbian Orthodox Church

The Serbian Orthodox Church traces its origins to the early Christian communities in the Balkans, with its formal establishment as an autocephalous church in 1219 by Saint Sava, the first Archbishop of Serbia. This independence allowed the church to develop a strong national identity, deeply intertwined with the Serbian state and culture. 

Throughout its history, the Serbian Orthodox Church has played a central role in preserving the Serbian language, traditions, and identity, particularly during periods of Ottoman rule and later under Communist Yugoslavia, when the church became a symbol of national resilience and continuity.

As historian Radoslav Grujić notes in his book Pravoslavna srpska crkva (Serbian Orthodox Church): 

The liturgical life of the Serbian Orthodox Church is rich with unique practices that blend Byzantine and Slavic elements. 

The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is central to worship, accompanied by a capella choral singing that reflects the traditional Serbian style. Icons and frescoes are prominent in Serbian Orthodox churches, with a distinctive Serbian artistic style that evolved through centuries of influence from Byzantine iconography and regional folk art.

Cultural observances, such as “Slava” (the veneration of family saints), are unique to Serbian Orthodoxy which highlights the church's role in family and social life. These events represent important celebration moments and define the cultural identity of the Serbian people! 

#15 - Bulgarian Orthodox Church

As one of the important branches of Christianity, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church is among the oldest Slavic Orthodox communities. Its origin goes back to the Christianization of Bulgaria in the 9th century under Tsar Boris I. This conversion marked Bulgaria as a significant early Christian kingdom and aligned it with the Byzantine Empire.

In 927, the church gained autocephalous status, with the establishment of the Bulgarian Patriarchate further asserting its independence and cultural identity.

Despite enduring political upheavals, including centuries under Ottoman rule and later Communist repression, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church remained a vital institution, playing a key role in preserving the Bulgarian language, literature, and traditions.

Bulgarian Orthodox worship follows the traditional Eastern Orthodox liturgy, particularly the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and includes distinct cultural expressions within Slavic Orthodox practices. Moreover, liturgical services occur in Old Church Slavonic, with occasional use of the Bulgarian language.

#16 - Romanian Orthodox Church

Unlike most other Orthodox churches, which are rooted in Slavic or Greek traditions, the Romanian Orthodox Church emerged in the Latin-speaking region of Dacia, influenced by both Eastern Orthodox Christianity and its Latin heritage.

As Timothy Ware explains:

The church received the status of an autocephalous church in 1885 and was recognized as a patriarchate in 1925. 

Throughout its history, especially during Ottoman rule and later under Communist oppression, the Romanian Orthodox Church has played a central role in preserving the Romanian language, culture, and identity and has become a symbol of national resilience and unity.

As you can imagine, Romanian Orthodox worship retains traditional Eastern Orthodox elements, with a distinctive cultural touch that reflects the country’s Latin and Byzantine heritage.

Additionally, unique customs, such as the widespread celebration of Sfântul Andrei (Saint Andrew), the patron saint of Romania, and the observance of traditional Orthodox fasting periods, highlight the church’s deep integration into Romanian cultural life.

#17 - Georgian Orthodox Church

The Georgian Orthodox Church is one of the world’s oldest Christian traditions, deriving its origins from the 4th century, when Christianity was established as the state religion of the ancient Kingdom of Iberia (modern-day eastern Georgia).

According to the later tradition/legend, St. Nino of Cappadocia played a central role in converting the Georgian people, making the Georgian Orthodox Church a uniquely indigenous Christian presence within the Caucasus region.

Throughout its history, the church has maintained its distinct identity despite periods of Persian, Ottoman, and Russian domination. The church also faced significant repression during Soviet (communist) rule.

Ware explains the social and political circumstances following the establishment of the communist regimes in the East: 

However, the Church in Georgia experienced a major revival following the state’s independence in the 1990s, and it remains a powerful symbol of Georgian national and cultural identity.

Furthermore, cultural observances, such as the celebrations of St. Nino's Day and Mtskhetoba (a festival honoring Mtskheta, Georgia’s ancient capital and spiritual center), underscore the church’s role in Georgia’s national life. 

#18 - Antiochian Orthodox Church

With this, we approach the last branch of Christianity within the Eastern tradition that will be covered in this article. The Antiochian Orthodox Church claims to be a descendant of the early Christian community in Antioch — an influential Christian center from the beginnings of the new religion! 

Despite various political upheavals, including periods under Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, and Ottoman rule, the Antiochian Church has preserved its heritage, maintaining a strong Orthodox Christian presence in the Levant. 

Today, the church’s influence extends to the Middle East, especially in Syria and Lebanon, and to a growing diaspora community in North America and Australia. Liturgical practices in the Antiochian Orthodox Church reflect both the broader Orthodox tradition and distinctive regional elements.

The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom remains central, with services typically conducted in Arabic or the local vernacular, incorporating chants and hymns rooted in ancient Byzantine music but adapted to Middle Eastern styles.

Finally, unique traditions, such as the celebration of St. George, a patron saint widely revered in the Middle East, and the observance of local feast days, highlight the Antiochian Church’s deep cultural ties to the region. 

Branches of Christianity Within the Oriental Orthodoxy

In this section, we focus on the sub-branches of Oriental Orthodoxy, a group of ancient Christian communities that developed distinct traditions and identities within the broader framework of the Oriental Orthodox Church.

#19 - Coptic Orthodox Church

The Coptic Orthodox Church claims its origins in the 1st century C.E., asserting that the evangelist and first bishop Mark in Alexandria founded it. However, critical scholars assert a lack of evidence for that tradition, concluding that “we have no contemporary [papyri] witnesses to pre-Demetrian (189-232 C.E.) Christianity to provide a background for his era.”

Emerging within a Greco-Roman and Egyptian cultural context, the church developed a distinctive theological identity, particularly after rejecting the Council of Chalcedon in 451 C.E. This separation arose due to differences in Christological doctrine, with the Coptic Church embracing miaphysitism, the belief in a single, united nature of Christ that is both fully divine and fully human.

The Coptic Orthodox Church is known for its ancient liturgical practices and deep cultural integration within Egyptian society. The Divine Liturgy of St. Basil is central to worship, conducted in Coptic (an ancient Egyptian language with Greek influence) and Arabic, connecting believers to their historical roots.

In modern Egypt, the Coptic Church plays a crucial role in maintaining Egyptian Christian identity, serving as a spiritual and cultural foundation for the Coptic community. Unfortunately, the number of Coptic Christians in Egypt is declining. As of 2011, roughly 5% of the population belongs to the Coptic Church.

#20 - Armenian Apostolic Church

The Armenian Apostolic Church, one of the earliest established Christian communities, claims that it dates back to the apostolic age (1st century C.E.). According to later tradition/legend, apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew founded the Church through their missionary efforts. It must be emphasized that this is more a legend than authentic history. 

What is, however, historically verifiable is the fact that Armenia holds the distinction of being the first nation to adopt Christianity as its official religion in 301 C.E., under the leadership of St. Gregory the Illuminator. In other words, it became a Christian nation even before Constantine’s conversion in 312 C.E.

After rejecting the Council of Chalcedon in 451 C.E., the Armenian Church adopted a miaphysite Christology, aligning itself with the Coptic Church in Egypt. 

The Armenian Apostolic Church has preserved its distinct liturgical traditions and deeply embedded role in Armenian culture. Services are often conducted in Classical Armenian, and the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory the Illuminator is central, featuring ancient chants, incense, and the veneration of relics.

Furthermore, commemorative practices, such as the annual remembrance of the Armenian Genocide (the mass killing and forced deportation of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during World War I), underscore the church's role as a guardian of national memory and resilience.

With roughly 10 million members today, the Armenian Apostolic Church remains a vital institution for the Armenian people. It fosters a sense of unity and continuity among Armenians both in Armenia and throughout diaspora communities worldwide.

#21 - Ethiopian Orthodox Church

Unique among early Christian communities, the Ethiopian Church, as one of the branches of Christianity, developed largely in isolation, allowing it to preserve ancient Judeo-Christian traditions and practices that reflect a deep cultural integration within Ethiopian society. 

Mary Jo Weaver and David Brakke, in their book Introduction to Christianity, explain: “The church in Ethiopia is as ancient as any in northern Europe: it got its first bishop around 340, developed its distinctive traditions over centuries and now has over thirty million members."

Doctrinally, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church shares the miaphysite Christology common to Oriental Orthodoxy.

Furthermore, Ethiopian Orthodox worship is distinctively rich in ancient rituals, with services conducted in Ge’ez, an ancient Ethiopian language, and characterized by elaborate chanting, drumming, and dancing. The Ethiopian Biblical canon is one of the most extensive, including additional texts such as the Book of Enoch and Jubilees.

Through its distinctive theology, rich liturgical traditions, and integration into Ethiopia’s cultural life, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church continues to be a vital symbol of national identity.

#22 - Syriac Orthodox Church

The Syriac Orthodox Church traces its origins to the early apostolic period, particularly in the ancient city of Antioch, which was, as we already noted, a prominent center of early Christianity. The church formally separated from the wider Christian community following the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE due to theological disagreements, adopting a miaphysite Christology.

Syriac Orthodox worship is deeply rooted in ancient liturgical traditions, with services conducted in Classical Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic — the language Jesus spoke. Liturgical practices are rich with distinctive chants, incense, and icon veneration, creating a sense of continuity with early Christian worship. The church places significant emphasis on the role of saints, particularly St. Ephrem the Syrian, a revered theologian and hymnographer.

#23 - Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church

The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church originated from the missionary efforts of St. Thomas who, according to later legends, brought Christianity to India.

As Robert E. Frykenberg explains in the book A World History of Christianity:

The earliest written record of the Apostle Thomas’ missionary activities in India is found in the Acts of Thomas. 

Although the origins, original language, and provenance of this document are unknown, its oldest extant versions, preserved in Syriac, trace back to fourth-century Edessa. Scholars believe that, based on its content and contextual details, the Acts of Thomas could have been composed as early as the 2nd century. 

Nevertheless, most critical scholars accept the legendary nature of this account concluding that we have zero certain evidence of what happened to the famous disciple after Jesus’ death. 

By the 17th century, the Malankara Church formed a closer association with the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch, adopting West Syriac liturgical practices and affirming a miaphysite Christology. 

Distinctive in both theology and liturgy, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church conducts its services in Malayalam and Syriac, incorporating traditional West Syriac chants and rituals that reflect a unique Indian Orthodox identity.

Finally, strongly integrated into Kerala’s social and cultural fabric, the church upholds practices such as fasting, saint veneration, and observance of feast days, with a special devotion to St. Thomas. 

Branches of Christianity Within the Assyrian Church of the East

As we reach the final branch on this extensive journey through the many branches of Christianity, you might be wondering, “Is there really more?” Indeed, there is! This last stop takes us to the unique world of the Assyrian Church of the East and its sub-branches. Let’s wrap up with a look at this ancient tradition and the rich history it brings to our exploration.

Chaldean Syrian Church (Bonus Branch)

The Chaldean Syrian Church derives from the ancient Christian communities that emerged within the Persian Empire. This branch specifically developed among the Assyrian communities in India, tracing its roots to missionary efforts by early East Syrian Christians. 

As you can imagine, the Chaldean Syrian Church has particular ties to the heritage of St. Thomas the Apostle who, as we mentioned, according to later tradition, brought Christianity to India. 

In terms of doctrine, the Chaldean Syrian Church upholds the theological traditions of the Assyrian Church of the East, notably adhering to dyophysitism, which, as noted, teaches that Christ has two distinct natures, divine and human, united in one person.

The church’s festivals, hymns, and veneration of saints such as St. Thomas form an integral part of community life and reflect the blending of East Syrian Christian practices with local Indian cultural elements.

The Chaldean Syrian Church thus serves as a cultural and spiritual anchor for its members, which number around 15,000. 

Branches of Christianity Timeline

Instead of concluding our long journey through the branches of Christianity with a traditional summary, we decided to provide a visual timeline of key events. This timeline captures the origins and significant milestones for each of the five major branches. Enjoy!

We've reached the end of our exploration through the many branches of Christianity. We hope this extensive article serves as a valuable resource for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the world’s most widespread religion and its diverse traditions.

Edict of Milan: Date & Importance for Christians

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

In 313 CE, a pivotal moment in both Christian and Roman history occurred when the Edict of Milan, a proclamation that fundamentally changed the landscape of religious freedom within the Roman Empire, was issued.

In this article, I’ll give an Edict of Milan definition and explain its context, significance, and lasting effects. I’ll look specifically at the ways in which it not only transformed the status of Christianity but set the stage for the interweaving of church and state, defining much of European history in the centuries to come.

Background of the Edict of Milan

During the reign of the emperor Diocletian, who lived from 242/245-311/312 CE, the Roman Empire was split into several parts. An officer in the Roman army named Flavius Constantius became a co-emperor in charge of one part of the empire, specifically Britain, Spain, and Gaul (modern-day France). His son, Constantine, would later inherit this part of the empire from his father.

However, during his tenure, another co-emperor, Maxentius, expressed the desire to control Constantine’s regions. Thus began a civil war, preemptively initiated, in fact, by Constantine himself, who attacked Maxentius.

This later culminated in a final battle at the Milvian Bridge in northern Rome in 312 CE. In this battle, Constantine defeated Maxentius, leading eventually to his becoming sole emperor of Rome. However, according to Christian author Lactantius, the night before the battle, Constantine was told in a dream to place a sign, specifically the first two letters in the Greek word for Christ (Christos) on the shields of his soldiers. He did so, and won the battle. Attributing this success to the Christian God, he promptly converted to Christianity.

At this point, Constantine was still co-emperor and in charge of the Western empire, while a man named Licinius ruled the Eastern empire. In 313 CE, the two emperors met for a summit in the city of Milan. In his book The Emperor Constantine, Hans Pohlsander writes that Constantine formed an official alliance with Licinius in Milan by giving his sister to him in marriage.

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

Having secured this alliance, the two then agreed on a common religious policy. Diocletian and his co-emperors, including Constantine’s father, had instituted the most severe persecution of Christians to date in 303 CE, taking away their legal rights and demanding that they sacrifice to the traditional gods on behalf of the empire. However, Constantine and Licinius, who was not a Christian, decided to end this policy.

It should be noted, by the way, that another co-emperor named Galerius had, in 311 CE, issued an Edict of Toleration. It allowed Christians to freely practice their religion, at least in the provinces he controlled. The Edict of Milan would build on this.

What Is the Edict of Milan? Definition and History

An edict is an authorized proclamation with all the legitimacy of a law. Pohlsander says that the Edict of Milan, by that definition, was not an official edict, although it did outline a new policy. It only became known as the Edict of Milan retroactively, when mentioned in writings by 16th century historians.

In fact, we only have the text of the so-called edict preserved in the writings of Christian authors Lactantius and Eusebius. Lactantius says that the text was included in a letter from the non-Christian Licinius to the governor of a province called Bithynia. It begins like this:

While many believe that this policy actually made Christianity the official religion of the empire, the text clarifies how this was not the case. Instead, it allowed Christians and everyone else to practice whatever religions they wanted for the good of the empire. In other words, it noted that since there were so many deities, praying to as many of them as possible, including the Christian God, on the empire’s behalf could only bring benefits.

In addition, the edict recognized that a lot of property, including buildings, had been confiscated from Christians in earlier persecutions and ordered it returned to them:

This was a huge gesture and certainly made the subsequent growth of Christianity possible. It’s impossible to imagine, for instance, that Christianity could have later become the de facto religion of the empire without the provisions of this decree occurring first. It also validated Christianity, still seen by many as an upstart religion among more venerable ancient traditions, in a way that had never been done by the Roman government.

Was the Edict of Milan Religious or Political?

Historians have long debated whether Constantine’s conversion to Christianity was sincere or merely an attempt to curry favor with the growing population of Christians in the empire. Accordingly, many have questioned whether the Edict of Milan was an initial gesture of faith by a Christian emperor as it seems to be, or a cynical political strategy.

In her book The Christians and the Roman Empire, for instance, Marta Sordi asserts that the edict was just Constantine's first step in creating an expedient pact with the Christian God, whom he believed to be the strongest deity. If so, converting to Christianity and issuing the Edict of Milan may have been an attempt to strengthen his rule rather than to help Christianity itself.

Similarly, Yuri Koszarycz says that while Constantine did believe in the Christian God, he also believed in the existence of the non-Christian gods and made sure the edict emphasized toleration of all religious forms to gain the help of all deities.

However, whether Constantine’s motives were pure, the edict was the first of several actions he took which both preserved Christianity and allowed it to thrive in the future as an officially tolerated religion of the empire.

Impact of the Edict of Milan

While the Edict of Milan undoubtedly benefited Christians at the time, ending official persecutions and restoring property to those from whom it had been confiscated, George Weigal writes that there was a dark side to it as it “marked the beginning [of] the Christian Church’s deep entanglement with state power.” While Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the empire or outlaw other religions, his involvement would later lead to a narrowing of Christian thought, effectively marginalizing and eventually even persecuting many differing forms of Christianity.

According to A History of the Popes: From Peter to the Present by John O’Malley, one of the first developments after the issuance of the edict was that Constantine granted the palace of his wife Fausta to the current pope, Miltiades. The papal residence and seat of central Church administration, called the Lateran Palace, would be constructed on this site.

While the Edict of Milan was indeed an act of toleration in 313 AD, by 325 AD, Constantine would decide that there was such a thing as too much tolerance, even within Christianity. It was this year that he convened the Council of Nicaea, effectively a senate-like meeting of Christian bishops meant to form a consensus on Christian theological issues.

This imperial intervention was designed to standardize Christian belief and practice and define the form of the religion the empire would later officially endorse. In fact, the council’s consensus views would define orthodox Christianity for centuries, such that later Christian bishops, aligned with the empire, would call anything outside its confines heretical.

In addition, the edict began a long turning of the tables on religions other than Christianity. Despite the tolerance evidenced in the edict, Constantine almost immediately began to favor Christianity over other options. For example, in Jerusalem, named Aelia Capitolina by Rome after its conquest, Constantine had a pagan temple destroyed to build a Christian church on the site.

In addition, non-Christians were subjected to harsh and bigoted imperial laws intended to keep sacrifice and magic in check by closing any temples that continued to use them. In The Archaeology of Late Antique "Paganism," Beatrice Caseau notes that the teachers of non-Christian religions, including philosophers, were banned and their permission to teach revoked. In effect, while the Edict of Milan made the thriving of Christianity possible, it also initiated a persecution of non-Christian religions which would gradually worsen as the empire became more and more Christian.

Conclusion

With Constantine, the first emperor to convert to Christianity, a new statement of religious tolerance, co-authored by his non-Christian co-emperor Licinius, ushered in an entirely new era.

The statement itself, as written in a letter to a provincial governor, made three broad provisions. First, it said that all religions were legal in the Roman Empire. Next, it restored legal rights to Christians from whom they had been stripped. Finally, it restored property to those Christians from whom it had been confiscated during the persecutions of previous emperors.

It was a bold move, likely both religious and political, in that it convinced Christian subjects to support Constantine and Licinius’ joint empire. From a Christian perspective, it was definitely a windfall: not only did they no longer have to fear torture and death for their faith, but they also regained confiscated property, including buildings.

However, there is no doubt that the non-Christian members of the empire were adversely affected by the Edict of Milan and its aftereffects. Constantine destroyed pagan temples to build Christian churches upon their ruins, and various anti-pagan laws were enacted. In effect, this supposed act of toleration resulted in the long-term persecution of non-Christian religions.

The question remains, however: was the freedom and power Christians gained worth the resulting suppression of other forms of religious expression, Christian and otherwise, that the Edict of Milan made possible?

Are Catholics Christians?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

The question, “Are Catholics Christians?” may seem surprising, but it reflects a broader debate in the modern world. Catholics identify themselves as Christians, while certain Protestant groups sometimes use "Christian" as a label exclusively for their form of faith, implying a distinction.

While not universal, this division in terminology points to a deeper and more complex history of Christianity's development.

According to the Catholic Church, its history stretches back nearly 2,000 years, claiming an unbroken tradition that began with the apostles. 

While the church has experienced both high and low points, and there are times when this continuity appears more symbolic than historical, the Catholic Church still declares itself the oldest continuously functioning institution in the world today.

However, from a scholarly perspective, the origins of what we now call the Catholic Church are more closely tied to institutional and social developments in the post-Constantine era. 

In this article, we will delve into the origins and evolution of Christianity, exploring how the Catholic Church emerged as a dominant force within it. 

We’ll examine key historical developments, the differences between Catholic and Protestant beliefs, and why understanding these distinctions is crucial for anyone exploring the question of what it means to be Christian. Since we have an earlier article already published, we won’t go into the details of the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church. 

Finally, by focusing on history rather than theology, we aim to present an objective, scholarly perspective on this long-standing debate.

However, before we begin, I want to invite you to check out Bart D. Ehrman’s excellent course “Paul and Jesus: The Great Divide.” In it, Dr. Ehrman provides a scholarly perspective on two pivotal figures in Christian history, analyzing their theological similarities and differences. Give it a shot! You might be surprised by what you find. 

What Is a Christian? Explaining Basic Terminology

According to the Pew Research Center, there are more than 2 billion Christians in the world today, making Christianity the largest religion globally. However, this vast number encompasses a wide variety of beliefs and practices, which raises the fundamental question: What is a Christian?

To address this terminological challenge, we can define a Christian in broad, scholarly terms as someone who professes belief in a single God and the resurrected Jesus as his Son. This definition cuts across the different denominations and theological interpretations that exist within Christianity.

As Mary J. Weaver and David Brakke explain in their highly acclaimed book Introduction to Christianity: 

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

This broad definition allows for significant diversity within the Christian tradition. While nearly all Christians agree on the centrality of Jesus and his resurrection, they may differ on how to interpret his teachings, the nature of the relationship with God, and how salvation is attained.

Needless to say, these differences derive from different interpretations of the Bible, particularly the New Testament. For some, being a Christian involves a highly personal, spiritual relationship with Jesus, while others emphasize the role of church sacraments and communal worship as essential to the Christian experience.

In the next section, we will unpack the question, “Is Catholicism a form of Christianity?” by examining the historical development of Christianity and the emergence of the Catholic Church, particularly in the centuries following its foundational period.

Are Catholics Christians? The Early Christian Diversity

Ever since German theologian Walter Bauer published his groundbreaking work Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, scholars have recognized that Christianity was never a monolithic movement.

While certain aspects of Bauer's thesis have been critiqued — particularly by scholars such as Thomas A. Robinson — the central idea remains: Christianity began and continued as a heterogeneous movement. Its institutions only became centralized and more structured after Emperor Constantine's conversion in the early 4th century.

During the first several centuries of this “new religion,” various branches of Christianity flourished, each believer convinced they alone possessed the correct interpretation of the faith and the true path to salvation.

In his bestselling book Lost Christianities, Bart D. Ehrman highlights this diversity: 

This range of contradictory beliefs demonstrates the rich diversity of early Christian thought, with various sects holding onto radically different understandings of God, Scripture, and Jesus himself. 

A case in point would be Marcion, a second-century Christian who rejected the Old Testament entirely and believed that the God of the Old Testament was a different, inferior deity from the God revealed by Jesus. If you are interested in learning more about Marcion, we have a full article devoted to his life and beliefs.

Eventually, one of these streams triumphed, becoming what we now recognize as the dominant form of Christianity. The factors contributing to this result are many and complex, involving theological debates, social dynamics, internal features, and eventually even political support. 

Scholars such as Arland J. Hultgren and Paul Veyne have explored these developments, showing how the processes of institutionalization, doctrinal consolidation, and the support of imperial power — particularly after Constantine’s conversion — played a significant role in shaping what would later be known as orthodox Christianity.

Out of this diversity, and under the influence of Constantine, an institutional Church began to emerge, which would eventually lay the foundations for what we now call the Catholic Church. It’s to this development, and the formation of distinct Catholic beliefs, that we now turn our attention. 

Are Catholics Christian? Emergence of the Catholic Church

The conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine in the early 4th century marked a pivotal moment in the development of Christianity. Before this, Christians were a minority in the Roman Empire, sometimes even persecuted by both the provincial government and the central state. 

Constantine’s conversion, however, transformed Christianity into a favored and increasingly institutionalized religion. This shift had profound political and social consequences. 

Previous generations of scholars questioned the sincerity of Constantine’s conversion, suggesting that it was primarily a political maneuver rather than a genuine religious reorientation. Jacob Burckhardt, for instance, argued that the emperor only used Christianity as a tool to consolidate power and unify the empire under a single religion. 

However, contemporary scholars largely reject the idea that Constantine’s conversion was purely political. While Constantine may not have been a theologian, his conversion is generally accepted as genuine, though not without pragmatic elements.

In his book Quand notre monde est devenu chrétien (When Our World Became Christian) French historian Paul Veyne provides a nuanced perspective: 

Regardless of his motivations, Constantine took an active role in shaping the future of Christianity. 

He presided over the First Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., a significant event that helped define Christian doctrine. Additionally, Constantine issued decrees that favored Christianity, helping to shift its status from a persecuted minority to a favorable religion.

Furthermore, the 4th and 5th centuries witnessed the formal emergence of Christian institutions that would later be recognized as core elements of the Catholic Church. With the imperial support of Christianity, the papal office in Rome, for instance, began to develop into a central authority.

While the idea of a singular “pope” as the head of the Church was not yet fully realized, the bishop of Rome began to assume a prominent role among the bishops of the Christian world. 

By the 2nd century, the bishop of Rome was already regarded by some Christian leaders as primus inter pares (first among equals). This notion laid the foundation for the later papal claims to universal authority over all Christians.

The doctrinal disputes of this period were equally influential. The 4th and 5th centuries saw fierce debates about the nature of Christ, the Trinity, and the relationship between Jesus' humanity and divinity. These controversies were addressed by four major ecumenical councils held between 325 and 451 C.E. — Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451).

The decisions made at these councils, particularly the declaration of Jesus as fully divine and fully human at Chalcedon, became foundational to Christian orthodoxy. Most modern Christian denominations, including all Catholics and most Protestant groups, still accept the doctrines established at these councils.

The role of the bishop of Rome, and eventually the papal office, continued to grow in prominence. By the 5th century, popes were beginning to take on some of the symbols and powers associated with the imperial authority of Rome.

An important moment in the development of the papal office came in 451 C.E. when Pope Leo I asserted his authority by stating in a letter to the Council of Chalcedon that “Peter speaks through Leo.” This claim was a clear declaration that the pope saw himself as the successor of the Apostle Peter, who was believed by many to have held a special position among Jesus’ disciples. 

Although a direct historical lineage from Peter to the papacy is impossible to demonstrate, this belief became a central pillar of the Catholic Church's self-understanding.

In this way, the Catholic Church emerged from a series of theological, institutional, and political developments during the 4th and 5th centuries, claiming, of course, that her roots go back to Jesus and the apostles. 

The support of the Roman Empire, the crystallization of key doctrines, and the growing influence of the bishop of Rome all contributed to the formation of what would become one of the most powerful institutions in Western history.

In our exploration of the question “Are Catholics Christians?,” we now move to the issue of the key differences between Protestant Christianity and the Catholic Church. Since we already have a full article devoted to it, the following section won’t go into details!

Branches of Christianity: Key Differences Between Protestant and Catholic Christians

Despite being the most dominant and influential religious institution in Europe during the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church faced waves of discontent from both individuals and communities. One of the most significant voices of opposition came from an Augustinian friar and professor at the University of Wittenberg (modern-day Germany) named Martin Luther (1483–1546).

While preparing lectures on the Book of Romans, Luther made what is sometimes called the “Reformation Discovery.” He interpreted Apostle Paul’s writings as revealing that people are justified by God not for their good deeds, but solely through faith — trust in God’s grace.  

This realization struck at the heart of the Catholic Church’s teaching on works and sacraments.

Luther's grievances didn’t stop with theology. He was deeply troubled by the moral corruption among the clergy, especially the sale of indulgences — essentially promises of reduced punishment in the afterlife in exchange for financial contributions to the Church.

Luther’s criticisms didn’t go unnoticed. In 1521, he was excommunicated by Pope Leo X and summoned before the Imperial Diet at Worms to answer for his teachings. It was there that Luther made his famous stand, declaring, “Here I stand, I can do no other.”

Within a year, Luther had reestablished a new church in Wittenberg that operated on radically different principles. And as they say, the rest is history: Protestant Christianity was born, claiming — of course — that their teachings were the true continuation of the apostolic tradition, just as the Catholic Church did.

Now, let’s take a look at some of the key doctrinal and practical differences between Catholicism and Protestantism:

This table provides just a glimpse into the profound theological and practical distinctions between the two traditions. Although their differences are many, both continue to claim they represent the true teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Quite the historical rivalry, wouldn’t you say?

Conclusion

Are Catholics Christians? As we have seen throughout this article, the answer must be affirmative. Today, the Catholic Church is the largest denomination within Christianity, boasting over a billion adherents worldwide.

The Church's institutional framework and social organization trace their origins back to the 4th and 5th centuries, when it became increasingly structured under imperial support, though its theological and organizational roots extend even further into the early Christian centuries.

The Catholic Church, with its long history, reflects both the diversity of early Christianity and the complex processes that led to its consolidation. While significant differences arose with the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, Catholics and Protestants, as two branches of Christianity, share a common foundation in their belief in Jesus Christ, his teachings, and his resurrection.

Understanding the historical evolution of these traditions is key to appreciating the broader landscape of Christian thought, practice, and identity, making it clear that Catholics are indeed Christians, even as debates about theological nuances continue.

Pontius Pilate: Biography & Role in Jesus’ Crucifixion

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Pontius Pilate is a name that echoes through centuries of religious and historical discourse, largely due to his pivotal role in the crucifixion of Jesus. But what do we really know about Pilate? Are the Gospel portrayals of him accurate?

In this article I’ll examine the life of Pontius Pilate, exploring his historical background, his governance, and the portrayals of him in Christian texts throughout history. Furthermore, I’ll uncover the reality behind this key biblical figure to understand how historical and theological perspectives have intertwined to influence his reputation.

Who Is Pilate in History?

It would be wonderful to have a complete biography of Pontius Pilate, but the information from ancient sources about him is fairly sparse. For this reason, we don’t know anything about Pilate’s early life with certainty, although some scholars think his name might give us some clues about his background.

Roman naming conventions generally used three names for upper-class males: the praenomen, analogous to our modern first names, the nomen, a family name or surname, and the cognomen, a third name which was used by wealthy, high-status Romans to refer to each other according to J.G.F. Powell. For example, the Roman orator and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero would merely have been addressed as Cicero. Accordingly, Pontius Pilate is referred to as “Pilate” in most of our sources.

Pilate’s name (Latin: Pontius Pilatus) does not include his praenomen in our sources. In his book Pontius Pilatus, Alexander Demandt writes that Pilate’s cognomen might refer to skill with a javelin which is pilum in Latin. If this is the case, it could indicate that Pilate’s father acquired this cognomen by proving his military skill. Alternatively, Demandt says the name could refer to a cap called a pileus, which might indicate that one of Pilate’s ancestors was a freed slave. (Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

“Pontius,” Pilate’s nomen, suggests his family came originally from a region called Samnium in central, southern Italy. He may, therefore, have come from the family of two leaders of that region, Gavius Pontius and Pontius Telesinus.

In Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation, Helen Bond writes that Pilate was a member of the equestrian order, mid-rank status in Roman society. While not at the top of the social order, he would nevertheless have been wealthy and educated. As a member of the Roman nobility, he was likely married, but our only reference to his wife, in Matthew 27:19, is not historically credible, according to both Bond and Demandt. Furthermore, it is highly likely, according to Bond, that Pilate had a military career before becoming a governor, although we have no explicit evidence of this.

Governor of the Roman Province of Judea

In his Antiquities of the Jews, 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus says that Pilate was governor of Judea for ten years during the reign of the emperor Tiberius, who reigned from 14-37 CE. Helen Bond says that Pilate was governor from 26-36/37 CE. His official title was “prefect,” and Bond notes that this title implies that his duties were military in nature.

While his main residence as governor would have been in Caesarea, the administrative capital of the Roman province of Judea, he would have come to Jerusalem for major festivals to help maintain order. One of Pilate’s rights as governor of Judea, by the way, was to appoint the High Priest of the Jerusalem Temple. Pilate appointed and retained Joseph ben Caiaphas as High Priest for his entire tenure. Readers of the Gospels will no doubt recognize this name from the accounts of Jesus’ trial (for example, Matthew 26:56–67).

During his tenure as governor of Judea, Pilate had several major conflicts with the people under his rule. In The Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus writes that, early in his tenure, Pilate ordered Roman military standards — decorative signs often carried into battle — with pictures of the Roman emperor on them to be brought into Jerusalem. Joan Taylor notes that Pilate was trying to promote the imperial cult, in which emperors were worshiped as gods. This, of course, would have caused major friction since Jews believed in their God alone and prohibited worship of other gods.

Josephus says that, in protest, groups of Jews surrounded Pilate’s house for five days. Pilate had them summoned to an arena and then had his soldiers draw their swords threateningly. However, Josephus says that the protestors were willing to die for their cause and that Pilate, aware that a large, bloody incident might reflect badly on him, agreed to remove the standards.

In another confrontation recorded by Josephus, Pilate used the funds from the Temple treasury to build an aqueduct to Jerusalem. An angry crowd thus surrounded Pilate while he visited  Jerusalem. Josephus says

In addition to these two egregious incidents, Helen Bond notes that "it is not only possible but quite likely that Pilate's governorship contained many such brief outbreaks of trouble about which we know nothing." In Embassy to Gaius, 1st-century Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria writes about Pilate’s

corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never-ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity.

In short, Pilate was not a benevolent governor and certainly had a terrible reputation among the Jews he was governing. Having established this historical background for Pilate, let’s look at his portrayal in the four canonical Gospels.

By the way, our one Roman source about Pilate is a brief mention by Roman historian Tacitus, writing about 80 years later, who merely acknowledges that Jesus was killed under his governorship.

Who is Pilate in the Bible?

In Mark, our oldest written Gospel, we first encounter Pilate in the Bible when Jesus is brought before him for trial. He first asks Jesus if he is the king of the Jews, a charge brought by the chief priests.  In Mark 15:2 Jesus answers enigmatically “You say so.” When the chief priests continue to charge him with crimes, Jesus is silent, despite Pilate’s gentle prodding.

Next, Pilate offers to release one Jewish prisoner to commemorate Passover. Mark says this was a common practice but historians beg to differ. In fact, Bart Ehrman notes that apart from the Gospels, there is no evidence that Pilate or any other Roman governor ever did this. In addition, given Pilate’s brutal nature as I outlined above, it seems highly unlikely. In any event, Pilate brings out Jesus and another prisoner named Barabbas. The crowd calls out for Barabbas to be released and for Jesus to be crucified. In Mark 15:14-15, Pilate seems to be defending Jesus and asks

In other words, Pilate doesn’t want to crucify Jesus, but the demands of the crowds force his hand. Based on what we’ve seen of Pilate’s pitiless methods of crowd control, this portrayal of a sympathetic Pilate doesn’t add up.

Matthew, who used Mark as one of his sources, writes essentially the same story, adding a detail in which Pilate conspicuously washes his hands in front of the crowd, signifying that while he allows Jesus to be crucified, he is not responsible. Again, this is not realistic. Luke adds that Pilate sent Jesus to be judged by King Herod who then sent him back to Pilate. Pilate pleads Jesus’ innocence to the crowd but then acquiesces to their demands and allows him to be crucified.

Finally, in the Gospel of John, Pilate has much more of a dialogue with Jesus. This convinces him even more that Jesus is innocent but, as he is fearful of the bloodthirsty crowd, he meekly hands Jesus over to be crucified.

What all these portrayals have in common is a timid, fearful Pilate who acquiesces to the demands of the people he is governing. Josephus and Philo would certainly not have agreed with these depictions of Pilate.

Most scholars agree that the Gospel portrayal of Pilate is inaccurate. John Meier, for instance, notes that Josephus writes that Pilate alone condemns Jesus to be crucified. Later Christian scribes added material to Josephus’ quote, but this particular fact is generally held to be authentic. Brian McGing argues that it is far more likely that Pilate simply executed Jesus as an insurrectionist without hesitation. So why would the Gospels portray Pilate this way?

In Lost Christianities: the Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, Bart Ehrman argues that while Mark shows the Jews and Pilate to be in agreement about killing Jesus, later Gospels gradually decrease Pilate's liability. He argues that this change is due to increasing separation between Christianity and Judaism over decades and demonstrates a kind of anti-Judaism. In The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave, Raymond Brown agrees, saying that these mild portrayals of Pilate reveal later contrasts between Jews and Christian Jews using anti-Jewish polemics.

What Happened to Pilate After Jesus Died?

To further reinforce the ruthless reputation Pilate had in his time, Josephus writes that in 36 or 37 CE, one further violent incident proved to be Pilate’s downfall as governor. An armed group of Samaritans, an ethnic and religious group closely related to the Jews, went to a small village near Mount Gerizim, where they hoped to find artifacts buried by Moses. Suspecting a revolt of some kind, Pilate had many of them slaughtered, although some escaped and fled. Those who survived complained to Lucius Vitellius the Elder, the governor of Syria and Pilate’s superior, that they had been unarmed and thus massacred without cause. Vitellius had Pilate summoned to Rome to be judged before Emperor Tiberius.

By the time Pilate arrived in Rome, however, Tiberius had died and been replaced as emperor by Caligula. We have no information about the outcome of Pilate’s meeting with Caligula, but it is certain that Pilate was either removed as governor or chose not to return. At this point, Pilate disappears from history.

However, unlike some biblical figures, Pontius Pilate’s existence is supported by at least one authentic archeological discovery. At the ruins of the ancient city of Caesarea in 1961, archeologists found what is now called the Pilate stone, a block on which the following fragmentary inscription can be read:

Scholars have surmised that the stone was to be part of a Temple dedicated by Pilate to the emperor Tiberius dated to 26-36 CE. This is tangible evidence of Pilate’s existence and his time as governor of Judea.

Later Christian Portrayals of Pilate

We’ve already noted that the Pilate of the Gospels was portrayed as timid and mild-mannered, contrasting with other sources. We’ve also seen that with the passage of time, Pilate’s was made to appear more and more innocent of Jesus’ death. That trend continued in the following centuries.

Tertullian, a 2nd-century Christian author, for example, said he had seen Pilate's report to Tiberius, and said Pilate had "become already a Christian in his conscience.” Most scholars believe this claim to be false.

In the 4th century, apocryphal gospels were written, some of which exonerated Pilate completely for Jesus’ death. The Gospel of Peter, for instance, says that Pilate had no involvement at all in Jesus’ death, which was actually done by the king Herod Antipas. The Gospel of Nicodemus (also called the Acts of Pilate) says Pilate was compelled by the Jews to crucify Jesus but felt very distressed about it. There are also two “reports” supposedly written by Pilate and sent to Tiberius about Jesus' death and resurrection, blaming the Jews.

In a Greek text called The Handing Over of Pilate, written in the 5th century CE, Pilate is arrested and brought to Rome to be tried before Tiberius for executing Jesus, although he has since converted Christianity. He is condemned, and at his execution, a heavenly voice says he will be with Jesus at the Second Coming.

Additionally, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church actually recognizes Pilate as a Christian saint.

Conclusion

Pontius Pilate was the governor of the Roman province of Judea from 26-36/37 CE. This happened to coincide with the arrest of Jesus, and Pilate accidentally became a permanent part of Christianity’s history.

The Nicene Creed, the 4th-century statement of faith composed at the council of Nicaea, mentions Pilate by name, saying that Jesus “was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate.” This was probably done to reinforce the notion that the crucifixion really did happen in history, but it also immortalized Pilate.

Sources outside the Bible say Pilate was cruel, not hesitating to violently punish anyone who stood in his way. In addition, there is no historical evidence that Pilate cared about the Jews or their beliefs and practices.

Despite this, the Gospels portray Pilate almost as an innocent bystander to Jesus’ death, blaming the Jews instead, which has caused centuries of antisemitism and ignored the facts of history. Later Christian writings even portrayed Pilate as a saintly Christian who suffered tremendous guilt over his role in the death of Jesus.

It almost certainly wasn’t true, though. Pilate was responsible for Jesus’ death. As Bart Ehrman says, the real Pilate was “offensive, intransigent, and brutal.”