You are right, formerly they only received due hospitality when traveling. Today they are actually paid a salary.
Apostle Paul actually commanded the Elders of Ephesus, "I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." Now this was a command at the time explicitly to the Elders, it is in line with his statement to the Corinthians, "Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not yours but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children."
Paul also said that he and others had right to received a compensation/support for doing the work they were, spreading the gospel.
More so, it was more than hospitality they were receiving. They also received gifts and the like. Philippians 4 states that Paul even did so.
Luke 7:37-38; Mark14:3-9 are examples of the ways the women ministered to Jesus out of their own substance. I do not believe he accepted money from them, and even if he had it would have been distributed to the poor and not to himself or his disciples.
Of their own resources. There is a monetary connotation to that. Luke 7 and Mark 14 are talking about some very different. Those weren't the women who were said to be ministering to Jesus and his disciples out of their own resources. That is a completely different woman who has nothing to do with the previous.
And it is fine if you don't believe something. However, if you can't support that belief, there is no reason for me to think that it is credible. More so, taking verses out of context, and pretending they have something to do with other verses, simply doesn't work.
I am not seeing any scripture where he accepted any more than hospitality. Most of his travels through the gospel narratives involved ships and coastal cities. Not only was it not a problem for some of the disciple to ply their trade, it afforded them easy access to travel.
Again, there is no suggestion at all that the disciple applied their trade. As I already mentioned, just carrying the supplies to fish simply would not have been possible. More so, if you trace the movement of Jesus, he is not by coastal cities that much. And even then, there is no time given to him or his disciple working. To assume so simply is not credible as there is no evidence for such a belief.
More so, the scripture may not state that he received money, but we know that the disciples had a treasurer, Judas. There would have been no need for that if they weren't receiving money. And again, since we are never told that they ever did anything put minister, there is no reason to assume that they were still applying their old trades. In fact, the only time we are told that the disciples went back to their old jobs is when Jesus died, and then in order to go back to their old jobs, they went back to Galilee. That is all the more reason to assume that they simply did not carry their supplies with them.
He was known as a carpenter during his ministry, which was part of the excuse for some Jews for not heeding him. Even in Jerusalem where he made the famous remark, "Destroy this Temple and I will build it in three days", was suggestive that he was an acknowledged carpenter in that place. Carpenters by nature of their trade move about.
He was only mentioned as a carpenter once, in one Gospel. That occurred in his home town, at the beginning of his ministry. After that, there is absolutely no mention or reference to him being a carpenter. So no, we can not say it was known that he was a carpenter, as there is no evidence for such.
As for his famous remark, that was not a literal remark. He wasn't going to actually destroy the Temple and build it up physically. It was a metaphor. It has nothing to do with carpentry.
Finally, there is no suggestion that some Jews would not listen to him because he was a carpenter. Again, the fact that he is a carpenter is only mentioned once, in one Gospel, and that was in his home town. It is never mentioned anywhere else.
Perhaps for the majority, but there were several examples in the scriptures for men and women who had means.
2 Corinthians 8:14-15
But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality: As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack.
You have to realize that those who had means were a very very small minority. And really, it doesn't change what I said.
That they had some money is not in doubt. But they did not have much. There is no account of them accepting alms, but there is of them giving alms. They worked for their necessities, received some hospitality, and distributed to the poor. There is no scripture that indicates they earned money by preaching, teaching, or healing.
There is also no mention of them working for their necessities, unless that work is to do with ministry. More so, there is no mention that they didn't receive money, thus your point is moot.
You really have nothing that supports your stance.
Luke 9:2-4
And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide, and thence depart.
This is actually somewhat funny that you would mention this verse. We have to put it into a historic context. If we look at other literature from that time, we see other itinerate preachers doing the same as this. The reason was because the expectation was that others would provide for them. If you were accepted into a home, they would feed you and the like, and you would minister onto them. Then they would depart for the next. It was a form of support/compensation that is being mentioned here.
