>Meaning it's what humans do in order to make themselves
>believe they are doing something that can carry over into a
>life after death
>
>Religion is ritual without connection e.g. selling birds and
>other items for sacrifices/offerings in the case of the temple
>cleansing
>
>Also remarks like "you worship your father the devil" appear
>to be strongly anti religion as those words were directed at
>the religious leaders who were certainly more concerned with
>laws

Cool. But that doesn't reconcile the fact that his entire persona was crafted out of Jewsish religious texts, or the fact that he told his followers to follow all of the commandments, regularly quoted scripture, etc.

So if he was anti-religion, that's an awfully contradictory position for him to have held.

That said, the actual existence of this person is not settled history, and the supernatural claims have no good supporting evidence.

To that end, what is the relevance of the question of whether he is anti-religious?

>We may have to stop there because I think without believing in
>any kind of supreme creator everything is religion

"Everything" isn't religion, whether or not one believes in a supreme creator.

so even if
>there really was a savior for the species who could
>demonstrate such and had a roadmap for us to live by in order
>to enjoy life eternally (whatever that translates to) it would
>still be considered religion by non believers which would be
>their right (to not believe) of course

...ok. Again, relevance? What is the broader point in that?

>At least one biblical book and the epic of Gilgamesh as well
>claim the world when Noah lived was one of creation run amok
>in the form of chimeras (mixed creatures eg the minotaur,
>satyr, sphinx, etc.)
>
>The person we call Jesus is quoted as saying "in the Days Noah
>so shall it be at the coming of the son of man"
>
>We have the scientific ability to do exactly what is described
>as having happened in Noah's time by beings greater than
>ourselves and have done so
>
>Is this just a really good guess based on the scientific
>progress of 70AD?

You're leading the evidence, not being lead by it. Prophecy is perhaps the weakest of all biblical claims, for myriad reasons. As far as this "as in the days of Noah" bit, you can literally look at anything that occurred during those times and apply it to nearly any point in history, and say that that point in history was as it was in the days of Noah.

There is absolutely zero archeological evidence to support the real-world existence of the sort of creatures you mention. They exist as creatures of myth, and nothing more.

Further, you say "is this just a really good guess", yet none of that is present in the passage to which you're referring.

Matthew 24:37-39:

"For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

You formed a conclusion based on something that isn't even mentioned in the passage, and then asked "is this just a really good guess"?

So, can you better clarify your question? Because as it stands, you're incorrect in both the premise and conclusion. The conclusion you drew here is entirely baseless.