>You know the whole selling things in a place of worship for
>worship thing

For question 1, Jesus himself said he came to fulfil the law. He also gave instruction to follow all of the commandments.

If you're asking if he's "anti-religion", that's a fairly broad question that depends very much on how you define religion. Further, he was a rabbi, and even referred to as much by the pharisees.

It's hard to say he was anti religion when he claimed to be literal embodiment of religious law of the time, and had a grouo of disciples who referred to him as rabbi.

If he instructed people to adhere to all of the commandments of the god of the Jews, it doesn't follow that he was anti-religion.

Also, you need to clarify the correlation your making between being "anti-religion" and "the whole selling things in a place of worship thing"

You're referencing the cleansing of the temple, and I don't quite see your correlation to that being an example of him being anti-religion.

>Question two is how do we explain that phrases referencing a
>time when cross species hybridization would re-surface we're
>written at a time when such a thing was for all intents and
>purposes impossible?
>
>Not talking about religion but what we base it on. I mean if
>it's all bogus question two should not exist

Can you clarify this question? As written, it's a little sloppy.

As it stands, regardless of what you're specifically referring to, it looks like you're making an argument from ignorance, I.E, implying that if we cannot account for this in some other way, it must mean not only that god exists, but the specific god of this specific book.

And there's a massive can of worms to unpack with that.