Did Jesus make alcoholic wine?

On my last blog post about alcohol and it's use in the first century, I had one brother tell me that I need to study more. The implication is that if I study more, I will see his point of view and change my opinion. This advice is not helpful. It does not present any new information and is a little demeaning. So, if you don't like what I'm saying and have a legitimate argument, please speak up and let me know where I went wrong. I'm willing to change my mind when I am shown to be in error. I don't drink alcohol because I don't like it, so I have no dog in this fight. I just don't like how many bind where the scriptures do not. 

Okay, so at the wedding feast in John 2, the host runs out of wine to serve his guests. Mary asks Jesus to do something about it (apparently knowing that he had the ability to do something about it). Jesus tells the servers to fill barrels up to the brim and take a cup out and give it to the master of the feast. When he tastes it, he realizes that it is wine and compliments the host for bringing out better wine than before. 

Last time I made a post, I addressed some issues with arguments against wine. I'll do the same here except to debunk any arguments that the wine that Jesus made was non-alcoholic. 

The first and most common argument I hear is that Jesus making alcohol would have placed a stumblingblock in front of a guest there that may have been an alcoholic, and that would be sin, and we know Jesus never sinned. 

I don't think so. I think this is a common result of us reading the bible with a 21st century mindset. If there were a drunkard there, Jesus probably wouldn't have served him. He would have known. Everyone would have probably known. But besides that, the people in the 1st century were used to wine. It was everywhere. They even served it to their children in diluted doses. In general, people didn't have a drink and not know when to stop. This is something they did every day. This argument is weak to begin with. Any time that you have to go from scripture to scripture and try to connect them to make a point, you will have to at least stretch the meaning of one scripture to make your point. That weakens your argument. 

Another I hear a lot is that the word for "good" when he says "good wine" means morally good.

What people fail to mention is that the word (Kalon) can mean morally good in certain situations. It's actually a great comparison to our word "good". If you say this is good wine, you are enjoying the wine. If you say that Betty is a good girl, then she is morally good. You have to look in context. The master of the feast compliments the host saying that usually people bring out the good wine first and then bring out the poorer wine when people are fully drunk. I'm sure people didn't get drunk off of morally good wine. This argument also makes one HUGE assumption. That is that alcoholic wine is not morally good. This is claiming victory before the discussion. You have to prove one thing before moving on to this discussion. You must also prove that the word drunk (methysthōsin -to drink to intoxication) does not really mean drunk. Good wine in this situation is something that can get you drunk, and it is what Jesus made. 

I must add my own little discovery. The word for poor when he says "poor wine" is the word, elasso. The word elasso can mean younger. It probably just means "lesser". But there is the possibility, and if you get to make the claim that good means morally good then I am allowed that lol . My buddy Ben also pointed out that this probably doesn't matter. They were probably speaking Hebrew. 

I can't really think of any other arguments that I have heard. I think it's ironic that Jesus' first miracle is the most debated. I think it necessary that it be alcoholic wine as well because grapes can quickly be made into juice, so that makes the Miracle all the more grand, but this doesn't enter into my argument. I also find it funny that his first miracle was edgy. But Jesus came eating and drinking (gasp!) and they called him a glutton and a drunkard (Luke 7:34). How does that verse even make sense unless Jesus drank alcohol? I digress. 

Thank you for reading. Me posting this doesn't make me a liberal or an alcoholic. I don't drink. I just cannot view it as sinful because there is no scripture to back that way of thinking up. If you have a way, don't tell me that I am wrong. Tell me WHERE I am wrong. I respect you. Please respect me.