Replies

When Yeshua [Jesus] saw the crowd around him, he gave orders to cross to the other side of the lake. A Torah-teacher approached and said to him, 'Rabbi, I will follow you wherever you go.' Yeshua said to him, 'The foxes have holes, and the birds flying about have nests, but the Son of Man has no home of his own.' Matthew 18:18-20 CJB

My understanding of that verse is that it was being used in the context of explaining that He was "not of this world". He most certainly had a home with His mother... but that wasn't what Jesus was trying to imply, IMO.

As far as the seamless garment....it is my understanding that this was only typical of high priests and Jesus wore it as "The High Priest", to represent His authority. There are many websites of historical value which describe this... and you can Google it. John 12:6 reveals that Judas was the treasurer for His ministry. No mistaking that. We are not to love money or put our faith in it... but there is no sin in being wealthy.

As far as the seamless garment....it is my understanding that this was only typical of high priests and Jesus wore it as "The High Priest", to represent His authority

Nonsense. You can Google anything, and anyone who is saying this I would bookmark to avoid for serious research. The fact is, that the talit has been without seams for 2,000 years. Pious men wore them all the time in the First Century - like a pancho - and they were not for "rich people", anymore than Bible's carried to church are for rich people. The purpose of the talit was to carry the tzitzit (fringes) from Numbers 15. Those tzitzit were also on the High Priest's garments, but in this case ALL Israelite men were supposed to wear them.

In other words, whoever says that the seamless garment was not common in those days, is quite ignorant of First Century customs. Let me guess, Google points to various "health and wealth-ers" for this kind of serious scholarship?

John 12:6 reveals that Judas was the treasurer for His ministry. No mistaking that... but there is no sin in being wealthy.

Those were my points. But you said "Jesus was well off" - and you said "Jesus had a treasurer" - those were the issues, and those are untrue statements.

It is certainly no sin to be wealthy... but why do apologist have to come up with "Well, Jesus was wealthy" statements?