According to the Christian Gospels, Jesus followed a modified form of the Samaritan religion

According to the Christian Gospels, Jesus followed a modified form of the Samaritan religion

Nowhere does the Gospel explicitly identify Jesus as being either Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. Still, it clearly points to the fact that he had a special liking for the Samaritan religion.
Why? Because, when asked which was the way to everlasting life, he sets a practicing Samaritan believer as the golden standard. As is written: «… “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life? ” “What is written in the law? ” he asked him. “How do you read it? ” He answered...
... “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, ” and “your neighbor as yourself”. “You’ve answered correctly, ” he told him. “Do this and you will live”...
... But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor? ”. Jesus took up the question and said, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him, beat him up, and fled, leaving him half dead. A [Jewish] priest happened to be going down that road...
... When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way, a [Jewish] Levite, when he arrived at the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan on his journey came up to him, and when he saw the man, he had compassion...
... He went over to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on olive oil and wine. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him...
... The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him. When I come back I’ll reimburse you for whatever extra you spend’. “Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers? ”...
... “The one who showed mercy to him, ” he said. Then Jesus told him, “Go and do the same”»- Matthew 10: 25-37.

Not only that, but the gospel also quotes the Jewish leadership accusing Jesus of being not a Spirit filled Jewish believer, but rather a demon possessed follower of the Samaritan sect. As is written: «The Jews responded to him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you’re a Samaritan, and have a demon? ”»- John 8: 48.
What was Jesus reply to these accusations? Well, he went on to say: «“I do not have a demon”, Jesus answered. “On the contrary, I honor my Father and you dishonor me”»- John 8: 49.
Notice how Jesus doesn’t hesitate to openly deny having any demon, yet he remains absolutely silent when it comes to the charge of being a Samaritan believer; And, according to John 14: 2, a theological proposal remains truth unless Jesus specifically denies it. As is written: “In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. .. ”- John 14: 2, King James Version.
But, if Jesus was indeed a Samaritan, what are we supposed to do with the gospel verse were Jesus seems to reject the Samaritan faith, justifying instead it’s Jewish counterpart (“ You Samaritans worship what you do not know. We worship what we do know, because salvation is from the Jews ”- John 4: 22)? Well, the proper thing to do with such verse is to immediately recognize both the clear contradiction it represents, as well as it’s questionable nature.
In other words, how can the gospel quote Jesus saying that Samaritans know not what they worship, when he has previously quoted him presenting a Samaritan believer as a far better standard [of mercy and godly love] than a Levite and a Jewish priest? (“ A priest happened to be going down that road. when he saw him [the wounded man], he passed by on the other side. In the same way, a Levite, when he arrived at the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan on his journey came up to him, and when he saw the man, he had compassion ”- Luke 10: 31-33)?
By the same token, how could the gospel quote Jesus saying “salvation is from the Jews” [as if Jews could grant salvation to their proselites], while at the same time quotes him saying that converts to Judaism were “children of hell”? (“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to make one convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a child of hell as you are! ” (Matthew 23: 15, Christian Standard Bible).
Thus, although Jesus didn't completely agree with all that the ancient Samaritan religion had to say about the place of worship (John 4: 22), he obviously followed a modified version of it (a sort of “Reformed Samaritanism”).

The Divine Law teaches that God’s name is blasphemed when we let holy things get contaminated by uncertainty and ambiguity

The Law states that God’s highest representative (the Holy High Priest) had to guard himself from any moral and physical blemish that could [by association] be imputed to the God he represented.
And that’s why Scripture commanded saying: “And he (the High priest) shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife. Neither shall he profane his seed among his people… For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them”- Lev. 21: 13-15, & 18-23, King James Version.
Why would marrying a widow [or a divorced woman] be a moral blemish for God’s High priest? Could it be possible that the God of the Hebrews discriminates against widows and divorcees? Not really. If it was considered a blemish, it was only because such practice would have [indirectly] encouraged sin, deception, and even murder. In other words, being the High priest’s wife was an extremely coveted position. Thus, any exceedingly beautiful [but married] woman living in close proximity to the High Priest would have been tempted to poisoning her current husband, in order to make herself available to the Priest [sort of like what happened between David and Bathsheba]. Likewise, a beautiful married woman could have divorced her former righteous husband just for the sake of enticing the High Priest to make her his new wife.
Worst than that! Not marrying a virgin could have led the High Priest [who was God’s representative] to unknowingly marry a women already pregnant with child. And since such child could end up becoming High priests, God’s enemies would have blasphemed the Creator, claiming that just as the High Priest was no more than a bastard, so was the God he represented.
And this is the reason why no person with a questionable, uncertain, or ambiguous background [symbolically alluded to by physical defects] could be appointed as God’s High priest, as that would have caused God’s name to be blasphemed. In fact, this is one of the reasons why Samaritan believers cannot accept the Christian claim of Jesus being God’s own High Priest. Why? Because by claiming him to be the literal son of God, they make Jesus lineage questionable, and ambiguous [in other words, they make him “defective”]. Why? Because such ambiguity gives way for God’s enemies to blaspheme the Creator, saying: “Was Jesus really the Son of God, or was he instead the son of an unknown Roman soldier who had raped her mother? And if Jesus [whom Christians worship as God] was the bastard son of a Roman soldier, then the God of the Christians is just a glorified bastard”