Yes, but it can easily lead to sin.
As can a lot of other things.
You don't seem convinced that alcohol is a mild poison.
It may be. Other things are too, and over indulgence/consumption can be dangerous.
Too much salt may increase blood pressure which increases risks of heart attack or stroke.
Food is not a poison, but too much may result in obesity, and cause illnesses like diabetes, heart problems etc.
Too much much caffeine can produce rapid heart beats, hyperactivity.
God spoke through Solomon to say those words. All Scripture is inspired by God.
Of course it is. But God does not say that wine is evil/sinful and must be avoided.
And if you are claiming that the wedding at Cana was under the Old Covenent; Solomon certainly was.
Again, Jesus did not marry, so He did not partake in all things that his brothers did.
Scripture says that he was like us in every way. That doesn't necessarily mean DOING everything we do.
For us, of course Jesus has not done everything we do; he did not own a computer/ipad/mobile phone, use Facebook, drive a car, work in an office and commute, have a family, etc etc.
But he is still LIKE us in every way. He understands loneliness, stress, being criticised for what your job and beliefs, being rejected and let down by friends, frustration, illness and bereavement. He understands the temptation to put yourself first, get your own needs met instead of staying true to God. He wept at Lazarus' grave, showed compassion for the sin and mercy to those caught in sin.
He also did not have a physical father.
He did, he had Joseph. You mean, biological father.
Not really.
He knew that wasn't his Father's will for him - and disobeying his Father was not an option.
Jesus walked perfectly and did not sin. Man has sinned. So therein lies the difference between Jesus and man. Jesus allows us to be forgiven when we first come to Him in repentance, and then Christ then can work in our life so that we can walk in His good ways. His good ways did not include drinking alcohol.
Like I said, it's a matter of opinion whether he drank alcohol or not. But even if he had, he would have still been sinless - he still loved and obeyed God perfectly.
Nope. Yeast in this case still represents sin. The Gentiles were regarded as being sinful and or unbelieving to the Israelites (Which can be seen in God's Word).
As you have said yourself - read the context.
Matthew 13 contains parables. First, the parable of the sower, and then parables about the kingdom - parables of the weeds, mustard seed and yeast. After explaining the parable of the weeds, he says that the Kingdom of God is like hidden treasure, a pearl and a net. All these parables teach different truths about the Kingdom of God and what it is like.
No mention is made here at all of Gentiles - nor of his second coming.
Sometimes yeast symbolises sin. Here the kingdom is likened to yeast because of it is something very small which grows and expands.
Not true. Jesus says,
"They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Mark 2:17).
That is why he CAME - it doesn't prove that he only had meals with tax collectors in order to convert them.
No, on it's own it is not a sin.
The sin is in over-indulgence, which may lead to crime, drunkenness, inflicting injury and so on.
Red wine is known to contain certain properties which can be beneficial; you have said yourself that you might drink in a medical emergency.
Even things like hand cleanser in hospitals, and mouthwash contain alcohol - for killing germs.
Literally in real life... "no.";
But in Bible language or the Bible's figures of speech... "yes it is."
No, quite often in Scripture it is used to
symbolise sin.
The Bible says that we are all sinners, not users of yeast. Romans, Galatians etc lists sins - lie greed, adultery, gossip etc. Yeast, and using yeast, are not mentioned once.
The devil is described as a liar and murderer - not someone who uses yeast.
Because Jesus was teaching something new. The New Testament ways.
But there are limits to what can go inside a person.
Obviously Jesus was not talking about eating cocain cakes, space brownies, and small live children.
Surely it would be sinful to eat these things, no?
Jesus was talking about clean and unclean food.
He said that no food can make a person unclean - because it does not stay inside a person's body but passes out again.
The things that make people unclean, Jesus said, are bad words and attitudes that are inside a person and come out; things like malice, deceit etc.
Not all laws are the same between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. It would be impossible to obey both because the commands between both covenants conflict with each other. Turn the other cheek is New Covenant. Yet, the Old way was an eye for an eye, etc.
God gave the law "an eye for an eye" to stop people from going over the top in getting revenge.
I.e, if someone steals from you, don't kill them and take all their possessions; that would be an over reaction. It doesn't mean that if someone steals from you/pokes out your eye that you are ENTITLED to do it back to them.
So in that case, I would say that both teachings are similar, of not the same. If someone injures you, don't feel that you have to get revenge and it is best not to. If you feel some kind of recompense is needed; it must be in proportion to what was done to you.
I do feel that this is a good teaching for people who are inclined to sue for millions over a small injury or insult.
When Christ died upon the cross, the temple veil was torn from top to bottom to show that the animal sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood were no longer valid.
Not exactly. I believe it was to show that there was no longer restricted access to God.
Only the high priest could go into the Holy of Holies to meet with God, and then only once a year. When Jesus died and the curtain was torn, it was because everyone could now have access to God.
Not true. At the Wedding of Cana: The ceremonial washing containers used by the Jews that were once filled with water, had been turned into wine by Christ. At that moment, they could not use their old washing containers anymore because it had wine in it (Because of Jesus).
That's not what the text says.
John 2:9 the master of the banquet did not know where the wine had come from, only the servants knew.
They now had to go to the blood of Jesus (i.e. the new wine) so as to get cleansed. The ceremonial washing water represented the Old Covenant, and the wine represented his blood of the New Covenant. Jesus said,
Interesting analogy, but the text does not say that.
When Jesus took wine at the last supper, THAT represented his blood of the New Covenant; there is no indication that any wine that is mentioned in the NT represents his blood also.
Not at all. There are tons of verses that support that Jesus made grape juice. The six points I provided in Scripture in my OP (Original Post) proves that point.
As you can see, most people disagree that the statements that you have made prove your own point.
But I really can't see the point in discussing this further. It doesn't help me, or make any difference.
The whole point of John 2 is that Jesus performed a miracle; according to John, the first that showed who he was.
If when I get to heaven, Jesus says to me, "incidentally, I only made grape juice at that wedding"; so what? As I said, it doesn't change anything.
If he were to say, "incidentally, that was a nice drop of red wine at that wedding"; again, so what? Wine or grape juice makes no difference to me and the way I understand the Gospel.
God bless you
