Should Pentecostals be considered their own branch of Christianity?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'd advocate a first-tier division of Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity, and a second-tier division of Western Christianity into (Latin Rite) Catholic, Reformed (in the broadest sense, not in the sense of Calvinist), and Restorationist.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The idea that all the branches of Christianity should be viewed as having the same branch point is to say the least odd. The first branching is between the Occidental and Oriental Churches. The Occidental branch then splits between the Catholic and Protestant branches. The Protestant branch split initially between the Apostolic, Reformed, and Baptist branches, with Mormonism, Adventism, and Pentecostalism being later developments.

I think there's some merit to this schema too, although I'd characterize the original intra-Protestant split as Magisterial/Radical. And then of course you have the Fundamentalist/Modernist split spanning across almost all Protestant denominations a century ago.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not to mention that some early branches (adoptionism etc) withered. Or were forcebly burnt off.

Which as an adoptionist myself, I think is a shame. Tho even as an adoptionist I'm a bit heretical as I don't think that Christ was adopted, but rather that when Jesus was adopted, he became the incarnation of the already existing Christ the Son.

I thought this was the standard adoptionist position.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Also, in what world is Hasidism separate from Judaism?! And why list Zen and Nichiren separately but not other Mahayana sects?

Also 'Zionism' 'Anti-Zionism' ayy lmao

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I also love the Quaker->Methodist->Pentecostal genealogy, in which they're all seen as somehow outgrowths of Anglicanism (which, granted, in the case of Methodism is actually true) rather than related to the Radical Reformation in any way. And how 'Mayan Olmec religion' disappears somehow within the first few centuries of the Christian Era and all other Amerindian religions are nonexistent. And how [Inks]ing SGI is on here but not Pure Land. And the fact that it has Vajrayana as growing directly from Theravada (which is treated as The True Buddhism in the same way that non-Hasidic Judaism is The True Judaism and the Catholic Church is The True Christianity) rather than as related to Mahayana.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

They usually are.
Catholic
Orthodox
Protestant
Restorationist (the denominations less than 300 years old, that tend to reject long-held teachings: Mormonism, Pentacostalism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.)

Orthodox is way too broad.

It is? It's a defined set of churches with shared government structures and a clear theological identity. At least, assuming what's being referred to is Eastern Orthodox rather than small-o orthodox.