WOW!
You have really stepped into it now. FAKE RELIGIONISTS? Really?
Your exposition is full of more holes than a sieve. Your ideas come from left field, not from the Scriptures. You have some problems handling the truths illustrated by the Word, not with us.
It appears that alcohol is a bad thing to you. You go out of your way to tell everyone how offensive it is. But, on a scale of one to ten, what do you think is the greatest sin? Define sin.
One of my teachers defined it easily. It is like an arrow shot at a target, missing the bullseye. ANYTHING that is not a direct hit on the bullseye is sin. To God, there is no "good sin", or "bad sin", just sin...
Alcohol use by Christ was not sinful, except in the eye of a drunkard. For Him to turn water into wine, IN A CEREMONIAL VESSEL, was right in line with turning over tables in the temple, or telling a woman seated at the wll to go and sin no more. He was the perfect illustration of a full humanity, while containing the Godhead in full.
His mom asked a favor. He told her (in essence) to get lost, but then proceeded to have the water drawn by the servants and given to the master. The story is clear, and your exposition is off the mark. The Book of John tells us why"! - John 2:11 What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.... 23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name. 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. 25 He did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each person.
Matthew 11:18-19: 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
Luke 7:33-35 33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.
34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!
35 But wisdom is justified of all her children.
When looking at these passages, Prohibitionists generally address this claim: We know that Jesus drank wine because the Pharisees called Him a winebibber. They argue correctly that the accusation does not prove that He drank wine. In fact, the point Jesus was making was that the Pharisees were falsely accusing Him of being a winebibber.
The problem is that no one has made the claim that the accusation of the Pharisees proved that Jesus drank wine. That is a straw man argument, invented because it is easy to refute and provide an appearance of victory over the real argument.
What is the real argument?
In the event described in the two passages above, Jesus is criticizing the Pharisees because of their sinful attitude towards two people who brought them spiritual truth, which they rejected. The point Jesus made was that the Pharisees accused John of evil because John did NOT drink wine, while at the same time accusing Jesus of evil because Jesus DID drink wine.
Jesus stated as fact that John The Baptist did not drink wine. Jesus also stated as fact that The Son of Man did drink wine. Jesus himself says that He did, in fact, drink wine. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for using the fact that He drank wine as an opportunity to make the false accusation that He was a drunkard (the meaning of “winebibber”).
The proof that Jesus drank wine is that He said Himself that He drank wine. -PedanticDan
Wrong. The argument was about John being a Levite, a prophet, and to act like a Nazarite (Lk. 1:15) who could not drink even unfermented wine. The lesson on character assassination does not give any further authority for anyone today to continue to slander Him as giving them an excuse for permission to drink as much as they wanted as long as they do not get "drunk." This is really dumb because in almost every state one may not operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level above .08% -- and they are constantly trying to lower it. How much does it take you to get drunk?
Now, this is real simple. Today, you can walk in any store and get a quart of 100% grape juice for two to three dollars. And I do. While in the old days I would get a nice bottle of Beaujolais to go with my filet mignon (No JTB then). So I can tell you, that the grape juice with its full sugar content and without alcohol tastes a lot better than the Beaujolais. I bought the wine because it was customary, and after a bottle, it was enough to lower both coordination, judgment, and inhibitions. The Beaujolais certainly cost more than $2-$3.
The simple part regarding wine is this:
If you want to enjoy the fruit of the vine, it has all the health benefits (resveratrol etc.) that any red wine has, and tastes better, especially chilled.
If you want to show you can rject the clear counsel of God's Word, and flaunt just a little disobedience in His face by doing something you don't have to, go ahead. But when you see your son, or daughter, or grandchild, or drinking pal brought home in a long box, you will begin to understand the stakes of the table you are playing at.
This is not about Prohibitionism, it about choice, about obeying Christ, and experiencing a few less tears in Heaven. If you get there, that is.
Christ's objection to Pharisees was not their legality, it was their phony hypocrisy, wasn't it? And you neither know how to apply the account of tableturning, nor untangle your twisting of Jn 4:7+ with Jn. 8:11.