This question was prompted by these verses surrounding Jesus' cleansing of the temple of the money-changers: **John 2:18-19** (NKJV): > So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, > since You do these things?” > > Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three > days I will raise it up.” On what basis could Jews demand a sign from someone?

I am an adoptive mother. Years after adopting two children I have learned that 80% of children NOT living with a biological parent was exposed prenatal to alcohol. 4-5% of the entire population of the developed world is so impaired by prenatal alcohol exposure that if the resources existed to actually diagnose everyone, they would have a diagnosis of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. This disorder impairs the typical development of the brain and body. My child has FASD as well as 4 other diagnoses that are as a direct result of the fewer and less connected neurons and reduced speed of conduction. My child has impaired coordination, initiation, language skills and has an intellectual disability. It is expected that my child will not be able to care for themselves and will likely live in a group home unless supports fail and is homeless because no one understands the disabilities and helps when I am no longer around. The alcohol consumed during pregnancy was done responsibly… one to two beer a couple times a week. This would not be considered overindulgence. There is NO safe amount of alcohol use during pregnancy. As I have grieved this diagnosis I have reflected on how I have contributed, if any, to the social acceptance of alcohol consumption. My contribution is very little. My experience is that alcohol smells bad, tastes worse, burns going down and alters who you are and what you do. I cannot think of another individual who has done more to promote the production, and consumption of alcohol than Jesus: **the first miracle involves turning water into wine, and it is a critical element in some churches' communion**. It has become more than difficult for me to praise him after this life experience. If the purpose of the wine is to provide joy and gladness then it’s unlikely that it was just fresh unfermented juice. While wine and juice may not have been linguistically distinguished until more recently, I don’t think it’s plausible that when speaking of wine this was always fresh unfermented juice because there is a harvest time and a single time of year to make wine. It would be impossible to source just juice year round for something like communion. Wine would have almost always been actual wine with alcohol. So with the discussion about wine not really being wine out of the way, can anyone help me view this from another angle? And if you haven’t guessed, I really don’t relate to the idea of alcohol actually gladdening effectively. I am certainly not feeling the gladness watching my children struggle everyday with simple things. **Why would Jesus perpetuate the use of alcohol?** He either didn’t know, or he did know but did it anyway. My faith has experienced significant rupture. Sadly. I wish it were not so.

We see minute details of preparation for the first-ever public miracle of Jesus in John 2:6-7: >Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim. The density of wine is slightly less than that of water, at about 0.99 g/mL. So if you have a standard glass of wine, that's roughly 150 mL, converting that to grams, you're at about 148.5 grams. In other words, 148.5 mL of pure water, if turned into wine, would make 150 mL. Given that each of the six jars had a capacity of 20 to 30 gallons, and each having been filled to the brim, there was all possibility that once the water turned into wine, the jars were no longer able to hold it without spilling. Now, John the Evangelist has the distinction of having recorded minute details of events, especially miracles. See for example, John 6:12-13: >When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, “Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted.” So they gathered them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves left over by those who had eaten. When John wrote that the jars had been filled 'to the brim 'prior to the miracle, there was some purpose. However, he does not mention if the jars were able to hold the water since miraculously turned into wine. Of course, the guests were desperately waiting for wine, and the jars would soon run dry. So, the phenomenon of overflowing must have been momentary. Are any apocryphal writings available on the post-miracle wine jars of Cana?

We read in John 2:1-2: >**1** On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, **2** and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. See that the primary invitee to the *Wedding Feast* is Blessed Mother Mary. Verse 2 implies that Jesus & Company, 'care of' Mary, were **also** invited. Traditionally, we are made to believe that the host of the wedding feast was not a close relative of Jesus, in that he initially shows reflectance to intervene in the shortage of wine, a serious prestige issue for the host. But, the primary invitee being Mother Mary, it is quite possible that the host was a close relative or friend of hers. The Evangelist does not leave a clue. Are there some apocryphal writings on the issue?

I am not a christian so please forgive me if there maybe a lack of knowledge from my side about it in the question. If I say that I am a son of god (God forbid) , then no christian will believe me. But they believe Jesus to be so. This is because there's special distinction between a normal person like me and Jesus. Moreover, it's not any wise to listen any normal person blindly and believe him. So, the Jesus was different from normal persons, and his miracles proved it. One of his miracles was to heal people who were deaf/blind from their birth. So, **preserving the un-ambiguity and distinction of Jesus, does Christianity claims that humans will never be able to cure congenital deafness/blindness ** ?

I vaguely recall a homily from several years ago where the priest explained what Mark 8:22-26 meant when Jesus healed a blind man that he saw other people's blindness (i.e. it was their souls that looked like trees, walking). Venerable Bede says that this is in reference to a person needing to be [purified by degrees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_man_of_Bethsaida) but what other takes are there on the reason this particular man 1. Wasn't cured at once and 2. Saw people that looked like trees. Looking primarily for historical or contemporary Catholic exegetes.