The greater context of the Bible argues against you. Please read in entirety the article at the link I provided in my last post, from which the following is an excerpt:
==========
. . . THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT WINE OF JOHN 2 BE ALCOHOLIC.
Many insist that it was alcoholic, on the basis of John 2:10, which says, “Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now.” They would say that, in those days, it was common to serve the best alcoholic wine at first, saving the worst until later, when men’s tastes have been dulled by much drinking. But the point is just the opposite here! These people could definitely recognize that the wine which Jesus made was much better than what they had been served at first. This could not have been possible if they were already well on their way to becoming intoxicated! The fact is, neither the wine which they had at first, nor that which Christ made, was alcoholic.
. . . THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN GLORY FROM MAKING DRUNK PEOPLE DRUNKER.
Verse 11 is most important when it states that, by this miracle, Jesus “manifested forth his glory.” Verse 10 indicates that the people had drunk quite a bit of whatever kind of wine they were drinking. If it had been alcoholic, they would have been intoxicated, or nearly so. Had Christ made alcoholic wine, He would have made drunk people drunker, or almost-drunk people completely drunk! Such a deed would certainly not have manifested any glory to Him!
, , , MAKING DRUNK PEOPLE DRUNKER WOULD NOT HAVE CAUSED HIS DISCIPLES TO BELIEVE MORE STRONGLY ON HIM,
yet verse 11 says that, as a result of what He did in turning the water into wine, “his disciples believed on him.” Jn. 1:41 shows that they had already believed on Him as Messiah; this was a deepening of their faith and a proof that they had not been wrong. Would making drunk people drunker inspire such faith? The opposite would be likely! They were not looking for a Messiah who would pass out free booze! Thus, because of the description of this miracle and its result, we cannot conclude otherwise than that this wine was non-alcoholic.
==========
Come now, give these points their honest place in your assumptions, eh? Give Jesus' righteousness a fair shake.
The idea that His wine was alcoholic demeans His missional purpose in making the long trip from Beth Arabah to Cana with His new disciples, and denigrates the purity of His character.
Do you not know that it takes leavening, that which is ritually and practically unclean, to make alcoholic wine? Leaven is a catalyst--not a reactant--and is unchanged by the process. To get fermentation, you have to add filth (toe jam, skin dirt, airborne yeasts, dirt from the container, bugs, goatskin oils, etc.). Fermentation is a rotting process that always makes the resulting product taste worse than the freshly pressed juice from which it is made.
In old-fashioned grape stompiung, aren't the makers immersed in the stuff up to their waist? What does that mean to you? In fact, the only reason we have wines that can be safely preserved today is because of the discoveries of Louis Pasteur that saved Franc's wine industry by means of heating the casked juice to halt the rotting process. (And proved the germ theory of disease while discovering pasteurization, through which we also have 'clean'(?) milk.)
Why would Jesus permanently vilify the ritual sanctity of the carved stone jugs used to hold the household's fresh water and keep it "living", just to store leavened fruit juice once for a party?
In my experience, no pressed juice of grapes that has had its sugars removed by fermenting them tastes more sweetly refreshing than cleanly pressed grape juice. And this is comparing Welch's grape juice made from concentrate, as compared to genuine top-quality Burgundy sipped in Dijon, or the freely available Dom Perignon in a first class flight from JFK to Narita.
Be honest with yourself. What does it take to override common sense and stand for a beverage that is only made sanitary by the inebriating alcohol it contains?
Carry this to its logical conclusion and spiritual evaluation --
If Jesus Christ wanted to turn water into alcoholic wine, why should we demean Him for that? I don’t see any need to do so.
It was done for a celebration of a wedding.
You might want to go back and do your homework. Natural yeast consumes the oxygen and the sugars in the fruit juice to produce carbon dioxide and alcohol. When all the oxygen and sugars have been consumed, the yeast dies and falls to the bottom of the vessel (the lees). That is how a dry wine is produced. A sweet wine simply means the fermentation was halted before all the sugar was consumed, either by removing all the oxygen or removing the biologicals.
Some people add yeast from other sources for a more controlled biochemical reaction.
If the person who created the biologicals, allowed them to serve Him in their natural function, why would we call that vile? Reminds me of the dream of Acts 10:15.
Act 10:15
(15) And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.