Garments and Tunic John 19:23 commentary

An attempt at an exhaustive commentary of John 19:23

Much can be derived from the event in John 19:23 when Christ was crucified and the solider took his clothes. 

When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments (ἱμάτια) and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also his tunic (χιτῶνα). But the tunic (χιτὼν) was seamless (ἄραφος), woven (ὑφαντὸς) in one piece from top (ἄνωθεν) to bottom,--John 19:23

οἱ οὖν στρατιῶται ὅτε ἐσταύρωσαν τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἔλαβον τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐποίησαν τέσσαρα μέρη, ἑκάστῳ στρατιώτῃ μέρος, καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα. ἦν δὲ ὁ χιτὼν ἄραφος, ἐκ τῶν ἄνωθεν ὑφαντὸς δι' ὅλου·--John 19:23 Greek major texts (only variant is the spelling of  arafos)

The tunic (χιτὼν) is an inner garment that people wore, whereas garments (ἱμάτια) refer to the rest of the clothes mostly on top of that.

Before they crucified Him, they covered Him in a purple garment for mockery and Pilate was hoping the crown of thorns and robe mockery were enough that he would let Jesus go.

And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head and arrayed him in a purple robe.--John 19:2

Jesus was not crucified with the purple garment according to Mark and Matthew, they dressed Him back in his own clothes to crucify Him

And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple (πορφύραν) cloak and put his own clothes (ἱμάτια) on him. And they led him out to crucify him.--Mark 15:20

Matthew's account describes a scarlet mantle:

And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet (κοκκίνην) robe (χλαμύδα).--Matthew 27:27

καὶ ἐκδύσαντες αὐτὸν χλαμύδα κοκκίνην περιέθηκαν αὐτῶ,--Matthew 27:28

Purple with scarlet, by the way, are some of the priestly colors:

And they shall take gold, and blue, and purple (πορφύραν), and scarlet (κόκκινον), and fine linen.--Exodus 28:5 

The differences in color was discussed in my article on John 19:2. 

Its noteworthy that some rabbinical sources speak of/interpret Lamentations 2:17 as saying God tore His purple garment:

They said further: This royal garment wherewith they clothed Thee, why keep it upon Thee?  Whereupon—if the fact were not set down in Scripture, no one would dare say it—The Lord hath done that which He devised. He rent His purple’? (Lam. 2:17).-Pesikta Rabbati 27/28 (some editions 27:5-6, or verse 2). translation:  Pesikta Rabbati (the Second of two volumes), William G. Braude, p 549

האמירה הזו שהלבישו אותך מה היא עושה עליך אלולי שהדבר כתוב אי אפשר לאומרו עשה ה' אשר זמם בצע אמרתו וגו' (שם שם י"ז) 

The editor's note states: 

12. JV: He Hath performed His word. But the word bs may be taken to mean "performed" or "rent"; and the word 'mrh may be taken to mean "word" or "purple." Cf. Lam. Rabbah I:I

This is why some translations say “He has carried out His word…” as its generally translated in Lamentation 2:17. The meaning of purple is somewhat forced since it lacks the letter gimmel.

The Hebrew word purple is: אַרְגָּמָן

The text quoted uses  אמרתו   instead. 

Lamentations Rabbah cited in the note states:

Rabbi Berekhya [said] in the name of Rabbi Avdimai of Haifa: [This is analogous] to a king who had a son. When he would perform his father’s will, [the king] would clothe him in fine silk, and when he would not perform his will, he would clothe him in the garments of an olive-press worker [badad]. So too Israel, as long as they would perform the will of the Holy One blessed be He, it is written: “I clothed you in embroidery” (Ezekiel 16:10). Rabbi Sima said: Purple garments. Onkelos translated: Embroidered garments. But when they do not perform the will of the Holy One blessed be He, He clothes them in the garments of olive-press workers....... 

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: The Holy One blessed be He summoned the ministering angels and said to them: ‘A flesh and blood king, when a relative of his dies and he mourns, what does he typically do?’...

‘A flesh and blood king, what does he typically do?’ ‘He rends his purple garments.’ ‘That is what I will do,’ as it is stated: “The Lord accomplished what He devised; He implemented [bitza] His statement [emrato]” (Lamentations 2:17). Rabbi Yaakov of Kefar Ḥanan explained it: What is bitza emrato? It is that He rent His purple garments. ‘A flesh and blood king, what does he typically do?’ ‘He sits in silence.’ ‘That is what I will do,’ as it is stated: “Let him sit alone and be silent” (Lamentations 3:28).--Lamentations Rabbah 1:1, Sefaria

רַבִּי אַבְדִּימֵי דְּמִן חֵיפָה, לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בֵּן, בִּזְּמַן שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו, הָיָה מַלְבִּישׁוֹ בִּגְדֵי מִילָתִין, וּבִזְמַן שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה רְצוֹנוֹ, מַלְבִּישׁוֹ בִּגְדֵי בָּדָד. כָּךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל, כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, כְּתִיב (יחזקאל טז, י): וָאַלְבִּשֵׁךְ רִקְמָה, רַבִּי סִימָא אָמַר פּוּרְפִּירָא תִּרְגֵּם אוּנְקְלוּס אַפְקַלְטוֹרִין פְּלִיקְטָא. וּבִזְּמַן שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, מַלְבִּישָׁן בִּגְדֵי בְּדָדִין, הֲדָא הוּא דִּכְתִיב: אֵיכָה יָשְׁבָה בָדָד... 

 אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, קָרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת, אָמַר לָהֶם מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם כְּשֶׁמֵּת לוֹ מֵת וְהוּא מִתְאַבֵּל, מַה דַּרְכּוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת...

מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם מַה דַּרְכּוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת, מְבַזֵּעַ פּוּרְפִּירָא שֶׁלּוֹ. כָּךְ אֲנִי עוֹשֶׂה, דִּכְתִיב (איכה ב, יז): עָשָׂה ה' אֲשֶׁר זָמָם בִּצַּע אֶמְרָתוֹ. רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב דִּכְפַר חָנָן מְפָרֵשׁ לֵיהּ מַהוּ בִּצַּע אֶמְרָתוֹ, מְבַזַּע פּוּרְפִּירָא שֶׁלּוֹ. --Lamentations Rabba 1:1

The NT and OT (LXX) never use the word χλαμύδα (G5511) outside of Matthew 27, according to Liddel Scott, the word generally refers to a short mantle horsemen use, though it notes generals and even kings wear them (in ancient times sometimes kings would join the march in battle).

Josephus commenting on the High Priest's tunic/robe says:

4. The high priest is indeed adorned with the same garments that we have described, without abating one; only over these he puts on a vestment (χιτῶνα)  of a blue color. This also is a long robe, reaching to his feet (ποδήρης), [in our language it is called .Meeir,] and is tied round with a girdle, embroidered with the same colors and flowers as the former, with a mixture of gold interwoven. To the bottom of which garment are hung fringes, in color like pomegranates, with golden bells by a curious and beautiful contrivance; so that between two bells hangs a pomegranate, and between two pomegranates a bell. Now this vesture was not composed of two pieces, nor was it sewed together upon the shoulders and the sides, but it was one long vestment so woven as to have an aperture for the neck; not an oblique one, but parted all along the breast and the back. A border also was sewed to it, lest the aperture should look too indecently: it was also parted where the hands were to come out. --Antiquities of the Jews - Book III:7:4, Josephus

Ὁ δὲ ἀρχιερεὺς κοσμεῖται μὲν καὶ ταύτῃ παραλιπὼν οὐδὲν τῶν προειρημένων, ἐπενδυσάμενος δ᾽ ἐξ ὑακίνθου πεποιημένον χιτῶνα, ποδήρης δ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ οὗτος, μεεὶρ καλεῖται κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν γλῶσσαν, ζώνῃ περισφίγγεται βάμμασιν οἷς ἡ πρότερον ἤνθει διαπεποικιλμένῃ χρυσοῦ συνυφασμένου: [160] κατὰ πέζαν δ᾽ αὐτῷ προσερραμμένοι θύσανοι ῥοῶν τρόπον ἐκ βαφῆς μεμιμημένοι ἀπήρτηντο καὶ κώδωνες χρύσεοι κατὰ πολλὴν ἐπιτήδευσιν τῆς εὐπρεπείας, ὥστε μέσον ἀπολαμβάνεσθαι δυοῖν τε κωδώνοιν ῥοΐσκον, καὶ ῥοῶν κωδώνιον. [161] ἔστι δ᾽ ὁ χιτὼν οὗτος οὐκ ἐκ δυοῖν περιτμημάτων, ὥστε ῥαπτὸς ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων εἶναι καὶ τῶν παρὰ πλευράν, φάρσος δ᾽ ἓν ἐπίμηκες ὑφασμένον σχιστὸν ἔχει βροχωτῆρα πλάγιον, ἀλλὰ κατὰ μῆκος ἐρρωγότα πρός τε τὸ στέρνον καὶ μέσον τὸ μετάφρενον: πέζα δ᾽ αὐτῷ προσέρραπται ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ διελέγχεσθαι τῆς τομῆς τὴν δυσπρέπειαν: ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὅθεν αἱ χεῖρες διείργονται σχιστός ἐστιν.  

Perhaps, the one-piece tunic is Christ's priestly attire (later I show Ephraim takes the garments as representing the clothes of not just king but priest). Evidently, Josephus was not fluent in Hebrew, or there was an error in transmission since the he calls the מְעִיל mi'il a meer, getting the final letter wrong. Perhaps, he heard the word from someone with Rhotacism.

John 19:23's mention of a tunic that is woven maybe an allusion to Exodus 36:35 LXX (v 34 in some)

καὶ ἐποίησαν χιτῶνας βυσσίνους ἔργον ὑφαντὸν Ααρων καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς αὐτοῦ--Exodus 36:35 LXX

And they made linen tunics (χιτῶνας ), a woven (ὑφαντὸν) work, for Aaron and his sons --Exodus 36:35 LXX

 As you can see just like John 19:23, Exodus 36:35 LXX mentions both tunic--χιτῶνας and woven--ὑφαντὸν.

The Hebrew Masoretic Text of this verse (which is found in chapter 39!) reads:

 וַיַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת-הַכָּתְנֹת שֵׁשׁ, מַעֲשֵׂה אֹרֵג, לְאַהֲרֹן, וּלְבָנָיו-- Exodus 39:27 Masoretic Text

And they made the tunics (ha-katnot הַכָּתְנֹת ) of fine linen of woven (oreg--אֹרֵג) work for Aaron, and for his sons-- Exodus 39:27

As you see the Greek LXX uses χιτῶνας kitonas, the Hebrew uses כָּתְנֹת kat'not. Many argue the χιτῶνας is a loanword from Semitic languages either Assyrian/Akkadian/Hebrew:

Together with Mycenaean Greek 𐀑𐀵 (ki-to) and likely Latin tunica from some Central Semitic *kittān, as found in Aramaic כִּיתּוּנָא‎ (kittōnā, “tunic”) / ܟܝܬܘܢܐ‎ (kittōnā, “tunic”), Hebrew כֻּתֹּנֶת‎ (kuttṓnĕṯ, “tunic”), which is derived from the local word for flax, found as Aramaic כּיתָּנָא‎ (kittānā, “flax”) / ܟܬܢܐ‎ (kettānā, “flax”), Akkadian 𒃰 (GADA /⁠kitû⁠/, “flax”), Sumerian 𒃰 (gada, “flax”).--Wiktionary, χιτών

 Tunics--Katnot, is first mentioned also in Eden:

 וַיַּעַשׂ יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים לְאָדָם וּלְאִשְׁתּוֹ, כָּתְנוֹת עוֹר--וַיַּלְבִּשֵׁם--Genesis 3:21 Masoretic Text

And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments (כָּתְנוֹת) of skins, and clothed them (וַיַּלְבִּשֵׁם)--Genesis 3:21

καὶ ἐποίησεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῷ Αδαμ καὶ τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ χιτῶνας δερματίνους καὶ ἐνέδυσεν αὐτούς --Genesis 3:21 LXX

And the Lord God made leather tunics (χιτῶνας) for Adam and for his wife and clothed them.--Genesis 3:21 LXX 

It appears again in the story of Joseph, who is a type of Christ (envied, betrayed and left for dead, only to 'rise' again):

 Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he [was] the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of [many] colours.--Genesis 37:3 KJV

This translation is likely wrong about "many colors":

And Israel has loved Joseph more than any of his sons, for he [is] a son of his old age, and has made for him a long coat [כְּתֹנֶת];--Genesis 37:3 Literal Standard Version 

 וְיִשְׂרָאֵל, אָהַב אֶת-יוֹסֵף מִכָּל-בָּנָיו--כִּי-בֶן-זְקֻנִים הוּא, לוֹ; וְעָשָׂה לוֹ, כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים.--Genesis 37:3 MT

The LXX reads:

Ιακωβ δὲ ἠγάπα τὸν Ιωσηφ παρὰ πάντας τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτοῦ ὅτι υἱὸς γήρους ἦν αὐτῷ ἐποίησεν δὲ αὐτῷ χιτῶνα ποικίλον --Genesis 37:3 LXX

Now Iakob loved Ioseph more than all his sons, because he was a son of old age to him, and he made him a variegated tunic [χιτῶνα kitona]. --Genesis 37:3 NETS (translation of LXX)

John 19:24 states the prior verse fulfills the prophecy

so they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfill the Scripture which says, “They divided my garments (ἱμάτιά) among them, and for my clothing (ἱματισμόν) they cast lots.”--John 19:24

διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον --John 19:24 (quoting LXX of Psalm 22:18)

 As can be seen, the verse as cited by John does not use the word for tunic (χιτὼν), but instead uses the same word for garment(s) ἱμάτιά both times.

Old Testament References and words used

John quotes the Psalms in the LXX word-for-word:

They divide my garments (ἱμάτιά) among them and cast lots for my clothing (ἱματισμόν).--Psalm 22:18

διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον--Psalm 21:19 LXX (Psalm 22:19 MT)

The Hebrew Masoretic Text however, uses two separate words בְגָדַי and לְבוּשִׁי:

They part my garments (בְגָדַי v'gaday) among them, and for my vesture (לְבוּשִׁי l'vushi) do they cast lots.--Psalm 22:18(19)

יְחַלְּקוּ בְגָדַי לָהֶם;    וְעַל-לְבוּשִׁי, יַפִּילוּ גוֹרָל--Psalm 22:19 (Masoretic text)

 The word לְבוּשִׁי l'vushi seems to only be used once in the Torah with reference to Judah (possibly royal garments):

Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washeth his garments (לְבֻשׁוֹ l'vusho) in wine, and his vesture in the blood of grapes;--Genesis 49:11

If we look a related word lavash לָבַשׁ

And Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting, and shall put off the linen garments (בִּגְדֵי big'dey), which he put on (lavash לָבַשׁ) when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there.--Leviticus 16:23

The word lavash לָבַשׁ is used several times in Psalms poetically eg. "Clothed with glory" "Clothed with shame" "clothed with righteousness" etc

Going back to Psalm 22, the word for vesture בְגָדַי v'gaday is used several times in the Torah, in addition to the above referenced Lev 16:23, even for the priests. Here it is used to describe the clothing overall of the priest. The item Josephus refers to as "meer" is mi'il.

And you shall make holy garments (בִגְדֵי) for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty....These are the garments (הַבְּגָדִים ) that they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe (וּמְעִיל), a coat (וּכְתֹנֶת) of checker work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments (בִגְדֵי) for Aaron your brother and his sons to serve me as priests--Exodus 28:2,4

The LXX reads: 

And thou shalt make holy apparel (στολὴν ) for Aaron thy brother, for honour and glory....And these are the garments (στολαί) which they shall make: the breast-plate, and the shoulder-piece, and the full-length robe (ποδήρη), and the tunic (χιτῶνα) with a fringe, and the tire, and the girdle; and they shall make holy garments (στολὰς)  for Aaron and his sons to minister to me as priests.--Exodus 28:2, 4 (Brenton's LXX translation)

καὶ ποιήσεις στολὴν ἁγίαν Ααρων τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου εἰς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν... καὶ αὗται αἱ στολαί ἃς ποιήσουσιν τὸ περιστήθιον καὶ τὴν ἐπωμίδα καὶ τὸν ποδήρη καὶ χιτῶνα κοσυμβωτὸν καὶ κίδαριν καὶ ζώνην καὶ ποιήσουσιν στολὰς ἁγίας Ααρων καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ἱερατεύειν μοι--Exodus 28:2, 4 (LXX)

Symbolism of torn veil/tunic

Back to John 19:23, the high priest tore his tunics presumably top to bottom (otherwise would look silly) in outrage and protestation (compare Acts 14:14 where Paul and Barnabas tear their garments in anger), symbolizing the loss of priesthood. The temple veil was itself torn top to bottom, symbolizing the protest/outrage and mourning (eg Genesis 37:34, Job 1:20-- called קריעה‎ keri'ah) of the Holy Spirit and the It's departing the temple as It's house and the impending end of the Temple. 

..also his tunic (χιτῶνα). But the tunic (χιτὼν) was seamless, woven in one piece from top (ἄνωθεν) to bottom,--John 19:23

And the high priest tore (διαρήξας) his tunics (χιτῶνας) and said, “What further witnesses do we need?--Mark 14:63 

And behold, the curtain (καταπέτασμα) of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom (ἄνωθεν). And the earth shook, and the rocks were split.--Matthew 27:51

When David mourned he tore his garments:

While they were on their way, the report came to David: “Absalom has struck down all the king’s sons; not one of them is left.” Then the king arose, and rent (וַיִּקְרַע, vayyikra') his garments, and lay on the earth; and all his servants stood by with their clothes rent.--2 Samuel 13:30-31

וַיְהִי, הֵמָּה בַדֶּרֶךְ, וְהַשְּׁמֻעָה בָאָה, אֶל-דָּוִד לֵאמֹר:  הִכָּה אַבְשָׁלוֹם אֶת-כָּל-בְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ, וְלֹא-נוֹתַר מֵהֶם אֶחָד.  וַיָּקָם הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיִּקְרַע אֶת-בְּגָדָיו, וַיִּשְׁכַּב אָרְצָה; וְכָל-עֲבָדָיו נִצָּבִים, קְרֻעֵי בְגָדִים. -- 2Samuel 13:30-31

The king stood up, tore his clothes and lay down on the ground; and all his attendants stood by with their clothes torn. 

The Jewish Talmud states:

The Gemara challenges: But if one was standing there at the time of the soul’s departure, i.e., at the time of death, he is also obligated to rend his clothes. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One who stands over the deceased at the time of the soul’s departure is obligated to rend his clothes. To what may this be likened? To a Torah scroll that is burned, for which anyone present is obligated to rend his clothes. --Moed Katan 25a

אִי דְּקָאֵי הָתָם בִּשְׁעַת יְצִיאַת נְשָׁמָה חַיּוֹבֵי מִיחַיַּיב! דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הָעוֹמֵד עַל הַמֵּת בִּשְׁעַת יְצִיאַת נְשָׁמָה — חַיָּיב לִקְרוֹעַ. לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה — לְסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּשְׂרַף, שֶׁחַיָּיב לִקְרוֹעַ!--Moed Katan 25a

Symbolic of the end of the Old Testament Levitical priesthood

St Ephraim the Syrian commenting on the priest tearing his tunics states:

"the high priest rent his garments (lit. sinus) and the priesthood fled from him, and left him naked and was spread over our Saviour."--St Ephraim the Syrian, Hymns on the Resurrection

Tying the priest tearing his tunics/robes and the tear of the veil: 

The curtain was torn. [This was] to show that [the Lord] had taken the kingdom away from them and had given it to others who would bear fruit. An alternative interpretation is: By the analogy of the torn curtain, the temple would be destroyed because his Spirit had gone away from it. Since the high priest had wrongfully torn his robe, the Spirit tore the curtain to proclaim the audacity of the pride [of the Jews], by means of an action on the level of created beings. Because [the high priest] had torn his priesthood and had cast it from him, [the Spirit] also split the curtain apart. Or [alternatively], just as the temple in which Judas had thrown down the gold was dissolved and rejected, so too [the Lord] pulled down and rent asunder the curtain of the door through which [Judas] had entered. Or, [it was] because they had stripped him of his garments that he rent the curtain in two. For the heart of the rock was burst asunder, but their own hearts did not repent.--St Ephraim the Syrian, Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron quoted here

Following in one stream of the Syriac tradition largely dependent on St Ephraim, the Church of the East ("Nestorian") bishop, Ishodad of Merv (in modern day Turkmenistan) writes:

The veil of the temple was rent which was a type that was annulled; first, because it could not bear the suffering of the archetype; second, to shew that the Divine Shekinah had withdrawn from it and the grace of the Holy Spirit--Ishodad of Merv, Commentary on the Diatessaron

St Ephraim says the mockery intended for Christ was reversed and suggests the clothing symbolize that of priests and kings (obviously the soldiers took it as mocking a king):

In the robes of mockery that they gave him, in those He mocked them: for He took the raiment of glory, of priest and kings.--St Ephraim, Nisibene Hymns, Hymn 58

In addition, according to the medieval Jewish scholar Maimonides, a Jew is required to ripe their clothes when they hear blasphemy which explains why the High Priest tore his robes!

What is the source which teaches that one is obligated to rend his garments when hearing the blasphemy of God's name? II Kings 18:37 states: "And Elyakim ben Chilkiyah who oversaw the palace, Shevna the scribe, and Yoach ben Asaf the secretary, came to Chizkiyahu with rent garments." Just as one who hears the blasphemy itself must rend his garments; so, too, one who hears the report of the blasphemy from the listeners must rend his garments. --Mishneh Torah, Laws for the Mourning 9, Maimonides

 Seamless Weave Top to Bottom

The priest's garment was to be woven in Exodus 36:25 (LXX), as I mentioned elsewhere here. God in the Torah seems to prefer weaving to sowing as in Genesis 3 where man sowed, God weaved a tunic.

St Thomas Aquinas' Golden Chain, derived from several commentators (mostly church fathers) from top to bottom symbolizes the Church:

The garment without seam denotes the body of Christ, which was woven from above; for the Holy Ghost came upon the Virgin, and the power of the Highest overshadowed her. This holy body of Christ then is indivisible: for though it be distributed for every one to partake of, and to sanctify the soul and body of each one individually, yet it subsists in all wholly and indivisibly. The world consisting of four elements, the garments of Christ must be understood to represent the visible creation, which the devils divide amongst themselves, as often as they deliver to death the word of God which dwells in us, and by worldly allurements bring us over to their side.--St Thomas Aquinas. Aurea Catena quoting Theophylact, On John 19:23

Theophylact of Ochrid (11th/12th Century Greek  bishop) seems to have derived this interpretation from the church father, St Cyril of Alexandria (perhaps earlier):

And it can do no harm also to add, that if any man choose, by way of speculation, to look upon the coat that was woven from the top throughout, and seamless, as an illustration of Christ's holy Body, because It came into being without any connection or intercourse of man with woman, but woven into its proper shape by the effective working of the Spirit from above, this view is worthy our acceptance. For such speculations as do no damage to the elements of the faith, but are rather fertile of profit, it would surely be ill-advised for us to reject; nay, we ought rather to commend them, as the fruit of an excellent disposition of mind.--St Cyril of Alexandria, On the Gospel according to John, Book XII, on John 19:23b

St Augustine said the being woven through symbolizes the oneness and universality of the Church by appealing to the world olos--which itself is part of the word Catholic.

Whence, also, after here saying, "woven from the top," he added, "throughout." And this also, if referred to its meaning, implies that no one is excluded from a share thereof, who is discovered to belong to the whole: from which whole, as the Greek language indicates, the Church derives her name of Catholic.--St Augustine, Tractate 118

St Jerome when addressing the pope, uses the seamless garment to refer to Church unity:

Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, "woven from the top throughout," (John 19:23) since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, (Song of Songs 2:15) and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover "the sealed fountain" and "the garden inclosed," (Song of Songs 4:12) I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ.--St Jerome, Letter 15 (to Pope Damasus)

However, Jesus' top-down woven tunic remained untorn, the lack of tearing perhaps symbolic of Jesus' acceptance of His execution in the same sense as a lamb led to slaughter.

Sheep before the Shearers

St Ephraim the Syrian, in fact, interprets the passage as fulfilling the prophecy of "a sheep before the shearers":

The sheep in its shame strips off its garment and cloak and gives all of it to its shearers, like the lamb who divided His garments for his crucifiers. --St Ephraim the Syrian, Hymn 11

Interestingly, John does not provide the other tearings, perhaps evidence his intent was to fill in the gap of the other Gospel narratives. In addition, Hebrews speaks of Christ's flesh as being a "veil" (Hebrews 10:20).

Represent the Deity of Christ, the human body and the gospel going out

St Ephraim had more to say on the topic of the tunic and garments:

"The tunic which was not rent signifies his divinity, which is neither rent nor divided: and the robe that is divided into four parts signifies the division of his body and is a type of his gospel which [goes] to the four quarters"--St Ephraim's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron

St John Chrysostom says the clothes can represent Christ's simplicity and poverty and his tunic, as St Ephraim said, his Divinity:

The soldiers parted the garments, but not the coat. See the prophecies in every instance fulfilled by their wickednesses; for this also had been predicted of old; yet there were three crucified, but the matters of the prophecies were fulfilled in Him. For why did they not this in the case of the others, but in His case only? Consider too, I pray you, the exactness of the prophecy. For the Prophet says not only, that they "parted," but that they "did not part." The rest therefore they divided, the coat they divided not, but committed the matter to a decision by lot. And the, "Woven from the top" (John 19:23) is not put without a purpose; but some say that a figurative assertion is declared by it, that the Crucified was not simply man, but had also the Divinity from above. Others say that the Evangelist describes the very form of the coat. For since in Palestine they put together two strips of cloth and so weave their garments, John, to show that the coat was of this kind, says, "Woven from the top"; and to me he seems to say this, alluding to the poorness of the garments, and that as in all other things, so in dress also, He followed a simple fashion.--St John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of St John, Homily 85

St Thomas Aquinas quoting St John Chrysostom adds:

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor (2 Cor 8:9)--St Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapter 19, Lecture 4

To this it might be asked, why, if Jesus' clothes were so plain and humble did the soldiers cast lots for them? Were they really of little value? Might it symbolize the that the gentiles seek the simplicity of Christ? Or was this an extended part of their mockery? Pretending His cheap clothes were valuable?

St Cyril of Alexandria, in addition, compares the division yet unity to the gospel throughout the world, and the passover lamb,

And if it behoves us also to declare another thought which strikes us with regard to the partition of the garments----a thought which can do no harm, and may possibly do good to those who hear it----I will speak as follows: Their division of the Saviour's garments into four parts, and retention of the coat in its undivided state, is perhaps symbolical of the mysterious providence whereby the four quarters of the world were destined to be saved. For the four quarters of the world divided, as it were, among themselves the garment of the Word, that is, His Body which yet remained indivisible. For though the Only-begotten be cut into small pieces, so far as individual needs are concerned, and sanctify the soul of every man, together with his body, by His Flesh; yet is He, being One, altogether subsistent in the whole Church in indivisible entirety; for, as Saint Paul says, Christ cannot be divided. That such is the meaning of the mystery concerning Him, the Law dimly shadows forth. For the Law represented the taking of a lamb at the fitting time, and the taking, not of one lamb for every man, but of one for every house, according to the number of the household; for every man (if his household were too small) was to join with his neighbour that was next unto his house. And so the command was, that many should have a part in one lamb; but, in order that it might not appear, therefore, to be physically divided, by the flesh being dissevered from the bones, and taken from house to house, the Law laid down the further injunction: In one house shall it be eaten: ye shall not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house. For observe how, as I said just now, the Law took care that many who might be in one household should have a part in one lamb, but most carefully also took great precautions that it should not appear physically divided, but should be found in its completeness and entirety as one in all who partook of it, being, at the same time, divisible and indivisible. We must entertain some such view with regard to Christ's garments, for they were divided into four portions, but the coat remained undivided.--St Cyril of Alexandria, On the Gospel according to John, Book XII, on John 19:23

Putting on Christ

St Cyprian of Carthage in the 3rd century contrasted with dividing garments after Solomon died, Christ's tunic represents unity and "putting of Christ":

This sacrament of unity, this bond of a concord inseparably cohering, is set forth where in the Gospel the coat of the Lord Jesus Christ is not at all divided nor cut, but is received as an entire garment, and is possessed as an uninjured and undivided robe by those who cast lots concerning Christ's garment, who should rather put on Christ. Holy Scripture speaks, saying, "But of the coat, because it was not sewed, but woven from the top throughout, they said one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots whose it shall be." (John 19:23-24) That coat bore with it an unity that came down from the top, that is, that came from heaven and the Father, which was not to be at all rent by the receiver and the possessor, but without separation we obtain a whole and substantial entireness. He cannot possess the garment of Christ who parts and divides the Church of Christ. On the other hand, again, when at Solomon's death his kingdom and people were divided, Abijah the prophet, meeting Jeroboam the king in the field, divided his garment into twelve sections, saying, "Take you ten pieces; for thus says the Lord, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and I will give ten sceptres unto you; and two sceptres shall be unto him for my servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen to place my name there." (1 Kings 11:31)  As the twelve tribes of Israel were divided, the prophet Abijah rent his garment. But because Christ's people cannot be rent, His robe, woven and united throughout, is not divided by those who possess it; undivided, united, connected, it shows the coherent concord of our people who put on Christ. By the sacrament and sign of His garment, He has declared the unity of the Church. --St Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 1

Fulfilling the Sermon on the Plain

It is noteworthy, that in the Sermon on the Plain Christ said:

To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak (ἱμάτιον) do not withhold your tunic (χιτῶνα) either.--Luke 6:29

Clearly, Christ fulfilled His own instructions giving away both garment/cloak and tunic.

Symbolic of Kenosis and Theosis

On another level, the stripping of Christ may symbolize the incarnation itself, the kenosis, where taking form of a slave/servant he humbles Himself to death rather than demanding the treatment deserving of the Son of God. The Fathers sometimes spoke of the incarnation as Christ's putting on garments/robes. St Ephraim on the nativity said:

39.The two things You sought, in Your Birth have been done for us.— Our visible body You have put on; Your invisible might we have put on:— our body has become Your clothing; Your Spirit has become our robe. / R., Blessed be He Who has been adorned and has adorned us!--St Ephraim the Syrian, Hymns on the Nativity, Hymn 15

If this is applicable, then garments would seem to refer to humanity especially human nature with the body, and the robe is the Spirit, which would be fairly close to the Greek emphasis on theosis, partaking of the divine nature. 

Jesus' Garments Heal:

a woman who had suffered from bleeding for twelve years. She had spent all her money on physicians, but no one was able to heal her. She came up behind Jesus and touched the fringe of His cloak, and immediately her bleeding stopped.--Luke 8:43-44

And whithersoever he entered, into villages, or cities, or country, they laid the sick in the streets, and besought him that they might touch if it were but the border of his garment: and as many as touched him were made whole.--Mark 6:56

And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind [him], and touched the hem of his garment:--Matthew 9:20

The very garments that the soldiers divided among themselves healed people, and per Jewish law, the garments fringes are symbolic of God's laws (Numbers 15:38) which Jesus's fulfilled and observed. Later, in Acts the Apostles' (Acts 19:12) garments were sought for healing, too.

Ezekiel 44: Garments transmit Holiness

They are to wear...linen undergarments around their waists. .... When they go out into the outer court where the people are, they are to take off the clothes (בִּגְדֵיהֶם ) they have been ministering in and are to leave them in the sacred rooms, and put on other clothes (בְּגָדִים), so that the people are not consecrated through contact with their garments (בְּבִגְדֵיהֶם).--Ezekiel 44:19-20

Note Ezekiel 44 was understood as messianic by some Church Fathers. Ezekiel 44:2 for instance is taken to be about the incarnation and the virgin birth. 

The priest's clothes themselves are sacred and are not to be for the common people according to this verse since it will cause the laity to become consecrated. Perhaps, the soldiers taking the garments of Christ symbolize Christ dedicating to God even the gentiles. Perhaps, Christ wearing the military cloak symbolizes the future conquest of Christ over the Roman Empire with the conversion of Emperor Constantine the Great.

Jesus' Coat and Joseph's Coat

Others have pointed out the similarities between Joseph being betrayed and almost killed by his brothers only to later save them and the whole "world" from famine, and Christ saving man by His suffering.

John 19:23 describes Christ as wearing garments (ἱμάτια) and a tunic (χιτὼν). The Septuagint of Genesis 37:23 describes Joseph's coat as χιτῶνα (though the Masoretic uses כתנתו )

And it came to pass, when Joseph came to his brethren, that they stripped Joseph of his many-coloured coat (χιτῶνα) that was upon him.--Genesis 37:23 Brenton Translation of LXX

ἐγένετο δὲ ἡνίκα ἦλθεν Ιωσηφ πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ ἐξέδυσαν τὸν Ιωσηφ τὸν χιτῶνα τὸν ποικίλον τὸν περὶ αὐτὸν--Genesis 37:23 LXX

Like Jesus, Joseph was betrayed by his own people, had his persecutors strip him and take his χιτὼν (coat/tunic), brother Joseph and Jesus were betrayed for money, later to be revealed as saviors. Joseph's coat was dipped in blood of a goat, while Christ's was covered in his own blood. Both instances are examples of God using for good what men intended for evil.

Also, interesting is the fact that Psalm 22 uses the metaphor of being attacked by animals to describe Christ's passion, Genesis 37:33 the father assume Joseph was killed by wild animals.

Seamless Garment and the sown garments of Adam and Eve in Eden

The garment is described in John 19 as

.....But the tunic was seamless (ἄραφος), woven in one piece from top to bottom,--John 19:23

ἦν δὲ ὁ χιτὼν ἄραφος, ἐκ τῶν ἄνωθεν ὑφαντὸς δι' ὅλου·--John 19:23 Greek

The word ἄραφος arafos is only used once in the NT and LXX, however, literally it means non-sown, the word sow ῥάπτω (G4476) is used 3 times in the NT all referring to the "eye of the needle." The LXX the word sow in various forms several times, most notably by Genesis 3:7

And the eyes of both were opened, and they perceived that they were naked, and they sewed (ἔρραψαν) fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons to go round them.--Genesis 3:7 Brenton translation of LXX

καὶ διηνοίχθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ τῶν δύο καὶ ἔγνωσαν ὅτι γυμνοὶ ἦσαν καὶ ἔρραψαν φύλλα συκῆς καὶ ἐποίησαν ἑαυτοῖς περιζώματα 

Out of shame, Adam and Eve sew themselves aprons (or loincloths) to hide their naked bodies, later to be given tunic skins by God instead. 

καὶ ἐποίησεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῷ Αδαμ καὶ τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ χιτῶνας δερματίνους καὶ ἐνέδυσεν αὐτούς --Genesis 3:21 LXX

And the Lord God made leather tunics (χιτῶνας) for Adam and for his wife and clothed them.--Genesis 3:21 LXX

This is contrasted with Christ with an unsown tunic (underwear) that he was stripped of and made naked.

John's emphasis on "seamless" might be another one of the many oblique references to Eden by John and other gospel writers.

Other allusions in John might include: The swords of the cherub and the solider, the trees in the garden and the trees on Golgotha (crosses) that caused both death and eternal life, Adam is cursed to work among thorns, Christ wear a crown of thorns. The bride of Adam comes from his side, just as the Christ came forth from the side of Christ on the Cross. Both address a mother as "woman" the first being Eve the second Mary. Both Adam and Christ "sleep." The gospels at the mention of Christ's death mention the torn temple veil and the priests torn garment, the Temple itself like the Garden was the meeting place of heaven and earth, even more so Christ's body (Christ Himself calls His body the temple in John 2), Adam functioned as a gardener and priest before being banished from His temple, the gospels even have Jesus visiting a garden the eve of His death and speaking of the "fruit of the vine." Then again when he is buried it's in a nearby garden tomb. St Ephraim says the temple was enraged at the actions done to its archetype. The new Adam was crucified on the 6th day, the first Adam was created on the 6th day. Adam was cursed to make bread, Christ in a blessing made Himself bread. 

The minor detail to show prophecy fulfilled, and this written to show ruthlessness of execution

The soldiers, then, divided our Saviour's garments among themselves, and this is indicative of their brutal ferocity and inhuman disposition. For it is the custom of executioners to be unmoved by the misery of condemned criminals, and to obey orders sometimes with unnecessary harshness, and to show a masculine indifference to the fate of the sufferers, and to divide their garments among themselves, as though the lot fell upon them by some sufficient and lawful reason. They divided, then, the dissevered garments into four portions, but kept the one coat whole and uncut. For they did not choose to tear it in pieces, and make it altogether useless, and so they decided it by casting lots. For Christ could not lie, Who thus spake by the voice of the Psalmist: They divided My raiment among them, and upon My vesture did they cast lots. All these things were foretold for our profit, that we might know, by comparing the prophecies with the events, what He is of Whom it was foretold that He should come for our sake in our likeness, and of Whom it was expected that He should die for the salvation of all men. For no man of sense can suppose that the Saviour Himself, like the foolish Jews, would strain out the gnat, that is, foretell a trifling detail concerning His sufferings, as in this mention of the partition of His raiment, and, as it were, swallow the camel, that is, think of no account the great lengths to which the impious presumption of the Jews carried them. Rather, when He foretold these details, He foretold also the great event itself; firstly, in order that we might know that, as He was by Nature God, He had perfect knowledge of the future; secondly, also, that we might believe that He was in fact the Messiah of prophecy, being led to the knowledge of the truth by the many and great things fulfilled in Him.--St Cyril of Alexandria, On the Gospel according to John, Book XII, on John 19:23

Is "mother earth" image Biblical or pagan?

 The term Mother Earth in modern times is associated with new-age paganism and environmentalism, and for this reason is largely distained by modern Christians. This was not always the case. The term was used in the Bible and church fathers as simply an acknowledgement that God made the human body from the earth, and we feed from the earth. Unlike in paganism, Biblical mother earth is not a goddess, or a conscious living being. Furthermore, the mother-earth imagery is a type of Mary itself, as I will show according to St Ephraim the Syrian.

One of the earliest allusions to 'mother earth' is found in Job 1:21

He said, “Naked I came forth from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I go back there. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD!”--Job 1:21

Many versions omit translating shammah-- "there" or corrupt the verse to say simply "depart" however the Hebrew and Greek texts do not allow for this. Job speaks of going back to his mother's womb at death (ie burial) alluding to the earth as his mother.

Virtually every Bible commentary, be they Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish acknowledges Job here speaks of the earth as "mother."

Jewish: 

From my mother’s womb: the earth, “whence I was taken,” or actually, “my mother.”
and I will return there naked: He is not referring to the womb. What then is the meaning of “there” ? To the place of his return, for which he is destined, and he will not change the law, to return anywhere but to the earth. Therefore, it was not necessary to mention it--Rashi, Commentary on Job 1:21 Catholic:  Thither. To that earth from which all are taken. (Haydock) — Ista terra gentes omnes peperit & resumet demum. (Varro.) — Ut mater operiens. (Pliny, [Natural History?] ii. 63.) See 1 Timothy vi. 7. — As….done. Some copies of St. Jerome omit this, which is borrowed from the Septuagint. (Calmet)--Haydock on Job 1:21 But Job's words may be more elegantly understood of evil and sin thus: "Naked" was formed from the earth at the beginning, as if from a "mother's womb: naked to the earth shall I also depart;" naked, not of possessions, for that were a trivial and common thing, but of evil and sin, and of the unsightly shape which follows those who have led bad lives. Obviously, all of us human beings are born naked, and again are buried naked, swathed only in grave-clothes.--Clement of Alexandria, Fragment I, from his Catena, commentary on Job 1:21 c. AD 190 Calvinist (Protestant): And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return {b} thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; {c} blessed be the name of the LORD.  (b) That is, into the belly of the earth, which is the mother of all. (c) By this he confesses that God is just and good, although his hand is sore on him. --Geneva Study Bible on Job 1:21 Pope Gregory the Great (c. AD 600) notes that Sirach 40:1 comments on Job 1:21 in his Moralia: But as the earth has produced all of us, we not unjustly call her our mother. As it is written, An heavy yoke is upon the sons of Adam from the day that they go out of their mother's womb, till the day that they return to the mother of all things. --Pope Gregory the Great, Moralia, Book II, On Job 1:21

Similar to Job 1:21, Psalm 139:13-15 has David speaking of being formed in the earth:

For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.   Wonderful are your works; that I know very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.--Psalm 139:13-15

Either David in verse 15 repeats verse 13 but calls his mother the earth, or he is speaking as if he, like Adam, were made from the earth. Either way, similar language is used.

There are similar passages in Ecclesiastes 12, 1 Timothy 6. 

Sirach 40:1 appears to be commentary on Job 1:21, or based on it, but more explicitly calls the earth "mother":

Hard work was created for everyone, and a heavy yoke is laid on the children of Adam, from the day they come forth from their mother’s womb until the day they return to the mother of all the living--Sirach 40:1

In addition, the Fathers occasionally called the earth "mother."

The Syrian Father, St Ephraim the Syrian makes a connection between Mary and the earth from which Adam was formed:

"Just as, because the bodies which themselves have sinned, themselves must also die. and the earth their mother was cursed, so because of this body, because it is itself the church, which is not corrupted, the earth was blessed from the beginning. For the earth is the body of Mary, the temple which received the seed...Because of the first mother who was cursed, the second mother was expressly named blessed"--St Ephraim the Syrian (c. 306 – 373) EC Arm 4, 15 (CSCI 137, Arm 1, pp.55-6) 

 The Greek bishop of Constantinople St John Chrysostom refers to the earth as mother:

The earth, you know, is our mother and provider; to it we owe our beginning and our growth; this is homeland and grave for us all alike--St John Chrysostom, Homily 2 on Genesis

The north African, Latin father, St Augustine speaks of the "womb of the earth"

How powerful is God, who has given different seeds to the womb of the earth, that they might make to spring up such various shoots, such beautiful trees!--Exposition on Psalm 145

The north African , Tertullian, the first major Latin speaking Christian apologist (til his delving into heresy) writes of the earth as mother and "mother nature", and says it was normal to speak of heaven as a father and earth as mother in the speech of the time:

But if Saturn were a man, he had undoubtedly a human origin; and having a human origin, he was not the offspring of heaven and earth. As his parents were unknown, it was not unnatural that he should be spoken of as the son of those elements from which we might all seem to spring. For who does not speak of heaven and earth as father and mother, in a sort of way of veneration and honour? Or from the custom which prevails among us of saying that persons of whom we have no knowledge, or who make a sudden appearance, have fallen from the skies? In this way it came about that Saturn, everywhere a sudden and unlooked-for , got everywhere the name of the Heaven-born. For even the common folk call persons whose stock is unknown, sons of earth.--Tertullian, Apology, chapter 10

And they are angry with us, too, because we call each other brethren; for no other reason, as I think, than because among themselves names of consanguinity are assumed in mere pretence of affection. But we are your brethren as well, by the law of our common mother nature, though you are hardly men, because brothers so unkind. At the same time, how much more fittingly they are called and counted brothers who have been led to the knowledge of God as their common Father, who have drunk in one spirit of holiness, who from the same womb of a common ignorance have agonized into the same light of truth!--Tertullian, Apology, chapter 39 c. AD 200

Greek Father, St Basil the Great, Commenting on Genesis and plant life: 

The fertility of the earth is its perfect finishing; growth of all kinds of plants, the upspringing of tall trees, both productive and sterile, flowers' sweet scents and fair colors, and all that which, a little later, at the voice of God came forth from the earth to beautify her, their universal Mother.--St Basil the Great, Hexaemeron (Homily 2)

 Greek speaking Egyptian Christian apologist, Origen: 

Moreover, even if the ants set apart in a place by themselves those grains which sprout forth, that they may not swell into bud, but may continue throughout the year as their food, this is not to be deemed as evidence of the existence of reason among ants, but as the work of the universal mother, Nature, which adorned even irrational animals, so that even the most insignificant is not omitted, but bears traces of the reason implanted in it by nature.--Origen, Contra Celsum, Book IV 

 Conclusion: 

Is calling the Earth mother pagan? Yes. Is it Biblical? Yes. As pointed out to me once, witches light candles, but so do Jews and Christians.

General Councils and Liturgies On Hell

Instances where Hell/Eternal damnation is mentioned or alluded to by the Ecumenical Councils, and other ecclesial and magisterial documents:

Constantinople II:

Since the Lord declares that the person is judged already, and the Apostle curses even the angels if they instruct in anything different from what we have preached, how is it possible even for the most presumptuous to assert that these condemnations apply only to those who are still alive? Are they unaware, or rather pretending to be unaware, that to be judged anathematized is just the same as to be separated from God? The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.-- Constantinople II, Sentence against the "Three Chapters"

 (Note that Constantinople II is addressing post-humous anathematization, implying the council considered these people numbered among the damned, contrary to the common claim that the church does not 'canonize' or declare who are damned. Though, I might add. there is no reason to believe those who the Church declares damned or saved who died after the death of St John the Apostle are infallibly canonized.)

Prior to Nicea II:

"But Christ commands you not to offend any of His little ones, and declares that, even for a slight scandal, you stand in danger of eternal fire. And hast thou scandalized the whole world because thou hadst not courage to endure death, but hadst rather defend thyself by a sinful apology?--First Letter of Gregory the Second, Pope of Rome, to the Emperor Leo, in defence of Images  (before Nicea II)

Nicea II, the fathers recognized the anathema against universal reconciliation: 

"Cosmas, the deacon and chamberlain, reads from the Life of our holy Father Sabbas:-- 

  "At the fifth holy General Council, held at Constantinople, Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, together with the speculations of Evagrius and Didymus, concerning the pre-existence and restitution of all things, were all subjected to one common and Catholic anathema, all the four Patriarchs being present and consentient thereto...--Nicea II, Session I, p36

We reject along with them Severus Peter and their interconnected band with their many blasphemies, in whose company we anathematize the mythical speculations of Origen, Evagrius and Didymus, as did the fifth synod, that assembled at Constantinople.--Nicea II, Definition

 elsewhere uses terms of unending damnation: 

On account of the disaster which came about in the churches due to our sins certain venerable houses--episcopal buildings as well as monasteries--were seized by certain men and became public inns. Now if those who hold them choose to restore them, so that they are established once more as formerly they were, this is good and excellent. However if such is not the case, should they be inscribed in the list of priests, we order that they be suspended, and if they are monks or lay persons, that they be excommunicated, seeing that they are criminals condemned by the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit, and let them be assigned there where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched, because they oppose the voice of the Lord declaring, You shall not make my Father's house a house of trade. --Nicea II, Canon XIII

"Moreover, I look for the resurrection of the dead, and for the eternal retribution of all things which have been done, whether they be good or evil...."--Confession of Faith by Patriarch Tarasius read by Stephen, Deacon and Notary of the Patriarchate, Nicea II, Session III

And with a fan they purged the floor. And the good wheat, that is to say tire word which nourisheth and which maketh strong the heart of man, they laid up in the granary of the Catholic Church; but throwing outside the chaff of heretical evil opinion they burned it with unquenchable fire.--SESSION IV

"For whereas, like one who fell from heaven, he though to lift up himself against religion and to prevail against her, he was bound in fetters from above, being utterly despoiled of his expectations, and he heard from the Church that which of the Egyptian tyrant heard from Moses when triumphing over him, 'The enemy said, Pursuing I will seize, I will divide the spoil, I will satiate my soul' (Exodus xv, 9): yea, and against him was denounced the same prophetic curse which was denounced against the devil himself, 'God shall destroy thee for ever: He will pluck thee out and drive thee from thy dwelling-place, and thy root from the land of the living' (Psalm lii. 5). --Nicea II, Session IV, Letter of Pope Gregory, Most Holy Pope of Rome, to Germanus, Most Holy Patriarch of Constantinople read by Cosmas

In addition, at the council, speakers spoke plainly of people going into eternal damnation, for instance the Islamic Caliph:

"After that the Caliph Jezid had done this he lived not more than two or three years: then he died and went into everlasting fire..."--John the Legate of the East, Second Council of Nicea, Session V.

Cosmas Deacon Notary and Chamberlain read the "Fifth Epistle of St. Symeon Stylites of the Wonderful Mount to the Emperor Justin the Younger": ....Nor let your most gracious Highness delay, lest, by any means, some should insinuate unseaonable words, as if they had the sanction of your imperial Highness, especially since it is to you that God, who has been so impiously insulted by them, has committed the power; that thus the rest of them many spend all the days of their accursed and schismatical existence in fear, whom also their cognate darkness will receive to the vengeance of that future unquenchable and dark fire which shall consume them forever! And the Holy Almighty Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, which proceedeth from the Father, shall accurse them to the lowest depths of the abyss, to destroy them with a never-ending destruction.--Nicea II, Session V, Cosmas Deacon Notary and Chamberlain read the "Fifth Epistle of St. Symeon Stylites of the Wonderful Mount to the Emperor Justin the Younger", page 262 

 Lateran II:

22. Because there is one thing that conspicuously causes great disturbance to holy church, namely, false penance, we warn our brothers in the episcopate and priests not to allow the souls of the laity to be deceived or dragged off to hell by false penances. It is agreed that a penance is false when many sins are disregarded and a penance is performed for one only, or when it is done for one sin in such a way that the penitent does not renounce another. Thus it is written: Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point, has become guilty of all of it; this evidently pertains to eternal life. Therefore, just as a person who is entangled in all sins will not enter the gate of eternal life, so also if a person remains in one sin {12} . False penance also occurs when the penitent does not resign a position at a court or in business which cannot be carried on without sin, or if hate is harboured in his heart, or if the person does not make amends to whomever he offended, or if an injured party does not pardon the offender, or if anyone unjustly carries arms. --Canon XXII of Lateran II

Florence:

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.--Council of Florence, Session VI

Thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good shall go into eternal life, but those who have done evil shall go into eternal fire.--Council of Florence, Session VIII

Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally. --Session VIII

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.--Session XI

 Lateran V:

For the soul not only truly exists of itself and essentially as the form of the human body, as is said in the canon of our predecessor of happy memory, pope Clement V, promulgated in the general council of Vienne, but it is also immortal; and further, for the enormous number of bodies into which it is infused individually, it can and ought to be and is multiplied. This is clearly established from the gospel when the Lord says, They cannot kill the soul; and in another place, Whoever hates his life in this world, will keep it for eternal life and when he promises eternal rewards and eternal punishments to those who will be judged according to the merits of their life; otherwise, the incarnation and other mysteries of Christ would be of no benefit to us, nor would resurrection be something to look forward to, and the saints and the just would be (as the Apostle says) the most miserable of all people.--Session VIII

Vatican II:

We strive therefore to please God in all things(253) and we put on the armor of God, that we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil and resist in the evil day.(254) Since however we know not the day nor the hour, on Our Lord's advice we must be constantly vigilant so that, having finished the course of our earthly life,(255) we may merit to enter into the marriage feast with Him and to be numbered among the blessed(256) and that we may not be ordered to go into eternal fire(257) like the wicked and slothful servant,(258) into the exterior darkness where "there will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth".(259) For before we reign with Christ in glory, all of us will be made manifest "before the tribunal of Christ, so that each one may receive what he has won through the body, according to his works, whether good or evil"(260) and at the end of the world "they who have done good shall come forth unto resurrection of life; but those who have done evil unto resurrection of judgment".(261) Reckoning therefore that "the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that will be revealed in us",(262) strong in faith we look for the "blessed hope and the glorious coming of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ"(263) "who will refashion the body of our lowliness, conforming it to the body of His glory(264). and who will come "to be glorified in His saints and to be marveled at in all those who have believed"(265).--Vatican II, LUMEN GENTIUM 48

Divine Office, Menaion, Mass, Catechism on who is damned:

Noteworthy, though not councils at all, are the Byzantine version of Divine Office where Arius and Macedonius are declared damned:

Before the ages before the morning star, Thou wast begotten of the womb of the Father without mother; yet Arius calleth Thee a creature, refusing to glorify Thee as God, with audacity mindlessly confusing Thee, the Creator, with a creature, laying up for himself fuel for the everlasting fire. But the Council in Nicæa proclaimed Thee to be the Son of God, Who art equally enthroned with the Father and the Spirit. --COMMEMORATION OF THE HOLY FATHERS OF THE FIRST SIX ECUMENICAL COUNCILS At Great Vespers

The mindless Arius, showing himself to be a servant of a created being, and Macedonius, likewise revealed as abominable, are tormented together in the fire of Gehenna with the heathen.--COMMEMORATION OF THE HOLY FATHERS OF THE FIRST SIX ECUMENICAL COUNCILS At Matins, Ode III

Also,

Irmos:I have heard, O Lord, the mystery of Thy dispensation; I have understood Thy works, and have glorified Thy divinity. 

With the torrent of thy tongue thou didst hurl the betrayer of Christ, like Judas, into a place of fœtor, O blessed Alexander.

Like a fruitful olive-tree standing in the house of God, O John, thou therein didst bring forth those who believe on Him, like ripe fruit.--Menaion, August, THE 30TH DAY OF THE MONTH OF AUGUST, Matins, Ode IV: Canon of the Holy Hierarchs

 In the same metins:

Irmos: The Lord Who was glorified on the holy mountain, and by the fire in the bush revealed to Moses the mystery of the Ever-virgin, hymn ye and exalt Him supremely for all ages! 

Slaying the wicked Arius by thine earnest supplications, O divinely wise Alexander, thou didst dispatch him to a vile place, like another Judas, since he had apostatized in like manner. 

The mindless Arius, the enemy of God, who as a traitor rent asunder the robe of Christ, fell headlong, and now, like another Judas, lieth in torment in hell, O thrice-blessed Alexander. 

Through abstinence and unsurpassed vigils thou wast shown to be as one of the incorporeal beings, and in thy constant teachings thou becamest a rich wellspring of paradise for all ages, O John.--Menaion, August, THE 30TH DAY OF THE MONTH OF AUGUST, Matins, Ode VIII: Canon of the Holy Hierarchs

 The Latin Mass alludes to Judas' damnation:

O God, from whom Judas received the punishment of his guilt, and the thief the reward of his confession: grant unto us the full fruit of Thy clemency; that even as in His Passion, our Lord Jesus Christ gave to each a retribution according to his merits, so having taken away our old sins, He may bestow upon us the grace of His Resurrection.

Deus, a quo et Iudas reátus sui pœnam, et confessiónis suæ latro prǽmium sumpsit, concéde novis tuæ propitiatiónis efféctum: ut sicut in passióne sua Iesus Christus Dóminus noster divérsa utrísque íntulit stipéndia meritórum; ita nobis, abláto vetustátis erróre, resurrectiónis suæ grátiam largiátur:--Collect for Holy Thursday

Likewise, the Catechism of Trent in passing says Judas is damned:

Some are attracted to the priesthood by ambition and love of honours; while there are others who desire to be ordained simply in order that they may abound in riches, as is proved by the fact that unless some wealthy benefice were conferred on them, they would not dream of receiving Holy Orders. It is such as these that our Saviour describes as hirelings, who, in the words of Ezechiel, feed themselves and not the sheep, and whose baseness and dishonesty have not only brought great disgrace on the ecclesiastical state, so much so that hardly anything is now more vile and contemptible in the eyes of the faithful, but also end in this, that they derive no other fruit from their priesthood than was derived by Judas from the Apostleship, which only brought him everlasting destruction. --Catechism of Trent (aka Roman Catechism):THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS: Right Intention 

The Matins of the Divine Office for the now extinct Feast of the Garden of Gethsemane.

Then He saith: “I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.” (Matth. xxvi. 31.) He was sorrowful because He was leaving us orphans. But how resolutely He was giving Himself up to die is sufficiently clear by what followed, when He went to meet those that sought Him, when He calmed the agitated, when He nerved the timid, when He received the traitor himself with the condescension of a kiss. Neither is it other than the truth to say that He was sorrowful for their sakes who were hunting Him down, since He knew what a punishment they were to undergo for that unutterable crime. And because of all these things He said: "Let this cup pass from Me!” It was not that the Divine Son Of the Divine Being was afraid to die, but He would not that even wicked men should perish on His account.--Office in Memory of the Prayer of Our Lord JESUS Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, Matins, Ninth Lesson. page 239

 Around Constantinople I, Pope Damasus plainly spoke of the damnation of Apollinaris

If any one speaks of Christ as having had less of manhood or of Godhead, he is full of devils’ spirits, and proclaims himself a child of hell.

“Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church.--Letter of Damasus bishop of Rome found in: The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, Book V, Chapter X

The Menaion says the iconoclast emperor Leo the Armenian is damned:

The wretched and most mindless Leo, infected with the heresy of Mamon, dashed himself against thee as against a hard stone, O God-pleasing Nicephorus, and hath quickly broken asunder in hell.--Menaion, June: June 2: St. Nicephorus the Confessor, Patriarch of Constantinople: Matin, Ode I 

On face value, these seem to contradict Pope John Paul II's assertion in his encyclical "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" where on the topic of the damned he states:

Who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard.--Crossing the Threshold of Hope

However, I am unsure of what exactly he meant. Did he intent an exhaustive list? A few names that are infallibly damned? 

Forced conversion in Orthodox missions

This is still a draft, far from done. I have already presented much of this to Ubi Petrus in the comment section on youtube a month ago.

The Eastern Orthodox apologists Ubi Petrus insisted EO missions differ from RCC in that they never used forced conversions. Far from true! His video is primarily about the efforts of Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church.

The large-scale conversion of the Slavs of Kievan Rus was mostly by Royal edict as alluded to in the Russian Primary Chronicles:

Thereafter Vladimir sent heralds throughout the whole city to proclaim that if any inhabitants, rich or poor, did not betake himself to the river, he would risk the Prince's displeasure. When the people heard these words, they wept for joy, and exclaimed in their enthusiasm, "If this were not good, the Prince and his boyars would not have accepted it." On the morrow, the Prince went forth to the Dnieper with the priests of the Princess and those from Kherson, and a countless multitude assembled.--Russian Primary Chronicles, page 116-117

Some note the missionaries were Ukrainians influenced by the Jesuits. Peter the Great ordered forced baptisms.

Taken from "Russia and the Small Peoples of the North Arctic Mirrors" by Yuri Slezkine

"...Force, however, was not to be used, and the first missionary expedition, unsupported by the secular authorities, was driven away by the Mansi. Greatly annoyed, Peter order Filofei to "find their seductive false-god idols and burn them with fire and ax them, and destroy their heathen temples, and build chapels instead of those temples, and put up the holy icons, and baptize these Ostiaks....And if some Ostiaks show themselves contrary to our great sovereign's decree, they will be punished by death."

"At the same time, Siberia was made a centralized gubernia, and its first governor, Prince M.P. Gagarin, arrived in Tobol'sk in 1711 with instructions to lend the missionaries a hand. A year later, the metropolitan [St Philotheus] had a ship, soldiers, interpreters, and gifts for the converts, and as he set out on his first large expedition, the future Christians were being rounded up, "so that these Ostiaks do not run away." In the course of the next decade Filofei Leshchinskii repeatedly "[tore] down the foundations of their idolatry, ruin[ed] their heathen temples, and demolish[ed] their idols." On reaching an Ugrian settlement a party of several monks and a dozen soldiers would go ashore, and "the teacher" would address the assembled villagers with a sermon on the advantaged of Christianity over paganism. An interpreter would translate his words, and the missionaries would proceed to burn "the idols and heathen temples." Having accomplished this, they would herd the villagers into the river for baptism, whereupon the "new Christians" would receive tin crosses, shirts, pants, bread, and other presents. Some Ugrians tried to flee, refused to leave their houses, or "covered their ears with their hands, like deaf vipers." Other attempted to bargain, anxious to keep their "many wives" and to place the images of their spirits "between the icons." A few attacked the missionaries "with a deadly hand." (According to Filofei's chronicler, the "teacher" himself was hit "in the belly" [chrevo] but escaped unhurt thanks to divine intervention.)  

In the long run, however, the threat of "punishment by death," the generous distribution of valuable gifts, and a number of special baptism benefits such as three years iasak waivers and pardons for minor criminals combined to ensure the apparent success of the enterprise, and in 1720 Peter congratulated Filofei on having baptized more than forth thousand pagans."--Arctic Mirrors: Russia and the Small Peoples of the North, Yuri Slezkin. page 49-50. 2016.

Slezkine cites Monuments of Siberian History Pamiatniki sibirskoi istorii (PSI) Памятники Сибирской истории 1:413-414

"...книгахъ тое ихъ доимки вынести, чтобъ тѣмъ доимки не помянулись. А естли возиожно, то того ради исправленія, и самому тебѣ богомолцу нашему ѣхать въ вышеписанные мѣста и приводить тѣхъ идолопоклонниковъ во истинной ко христіянской вѣрѣ. А ко крещенію имъ кафтаны бѣлые и рубашки изъ нашей казны и хлѣбъ, по разсмотрѣнію, такожде давать увазали. А естли кто Остяки учинатъ противность сему нашему великого государя указу, и тѣмъ будетъ казнь смертная. А о споможеніи тебѣ въ томъ въ Тоболескъ къ воеводѣ Ивану Бибикову писано, что къ той посылкѣ, или къ вашему богомолца..."--Памятники Сибирской истории 1:413-414

Ostiak (ostyak) Остя́к is (actually was, as it's not a used word in modern Russian) an umbrella term for several indigenous peoples of Siberian that was common in this period.

Slezkine also has another book detailing Russian evangelization more

"At the same time, Siberia became a centralized guberniia, and its first governor, Prince M.P. Gagarin, arrived in Tobol'sk in 1711 with instructions to lend the missionaries a hand. In the ensuing campaign thousands of native Siberians received baptism along with pants, bread, knives, and temporary tribute exemptions, or else by being herded into the rivers at gunpoint. In 1750 archimandrite Ioasaf reported from Kachatka that "all the Kamchadal, expect for the Koriak who moved from one place to another farm away from Kamchatka, have been, by God's grace, baptized by holy baptism, taught, and brought into the faith according to Christ's grace and for that reason the cause of the preaching of the word of God has ended and there is no one left to be converted from paganism to the Christian Faith."-- Between Heaven and Hell: The Myth of Siberia in Russian Culture. page 17. Edited by G. Diment, Y. Slezkine.

Also, 

""Otherwise, the vigor of the routine enforcement of Christianity depended on the local priests. In 1747, for example, Father Pykov gave the following account of his activities:

In the last year of 1747, in the months of April and May, I beat the new Christian, Ostiak Fedor Senkin, with a whip, because he married his daughter off at the said time and celebrated the wedding feast during the first week of Lent. I also beat his...son-in-law with a whip, because he buried his deceased son himself, outside of the church and without the knowledge of the priest...Semen Kornilov Kortyshin was beaten with a whip because he never went to the holy church....I also beat the widow Marfa and her son Kozma with a whip...because....they kept in their tent a small stone idol, to whom they brought sacrifices,...and broke the said idol with an ax in front of an Ostiak gathering and threw the pieces in all directions.25"  

25. Ogryzko, Khristianizatsiia, p. 91

Arctic Mirrors: Russia and the Small Peoples of the North By Yuri Slezkine. Page 51

Concerning claims the Russian Orthodox missionaries were different from the Spanish in not enslaving the indigenous, the book "Exile to Siberian" states:

"Despite the early guliashchie and a few other groups, European Russians dwelling patterns were for the most part replicated in Siberia. It is true that serfdom barely existed in Siberia, where almost all peasants were state peasants and therefore quite different from serfs, though it needs to be mentioned that monasteries such as the St Nikolai in Verkhotur'e, which obtained a land charter in 1622, and Tobol'sk's Sofiisk Monastery, chartered in 1628, did acquire serfs, in part by enserfing guliashchie liudi already living on what became their lands. Eventually, some 35 monasteries were established in Siberia (e.g. Dolmatov Uspenskii, Tobol'skii Znamneskii, Nev'ianskii Bogoiavlenskii), each of which obtained the right to enserf peasants on their lands, whether they were freemen or fugitive serfs. As of the early eighteenth century Siberian monasteries possessed 1,082 peasants households, and by 1762 owned more than 14,000 male serfs. Small numbers of privately owned serfs also existed in Siberia; but truly exceptional is an instruction dating from the mid-1640s in which Tsar Michael rules that the guliashscie Mishka Chashchin and Seluianko Nikonov be assigned to debt servitudes (kabala) in Verkhotur's uezd. All of which is to say that even if the typical Siberian peasant was more economically autonomous than his European Russian counterpart, he tended like him to live within a village commune that dictated both his existence and Weltanschauung."--Exile to Siberia: 1590-1822 by Andrew A. Gentes. Page 27

Nominal converts:

"In the 1720s, the missionary effort of the Russian state began to take on another dimension. Although the number of converts continued to grow on paper, reports from the field lamented the fact that the conversions were only nominal and that the converts remained ignorant of Christianity and did not observe any of its precepts. It was becoming more apparent that reliance on sheer force or legislative discrimination to effect conversions was not sufficient. --Of Religion and Empire: Missions, Conversion, and Tolerance in Tsarist Russia

https://books.google.com/books?id=5pRlDwAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&q=beliefs+took+their+sacred&hl=en&source=newbks_fb#v=onepage&q&f=false

The above does not even address the issue of forced conversion under the Roman Emperor, especially the Eastern/Byzantine emperors, forced conversion of Jews in north Africa witnessed by St Maximus the Confessors in Carthage in AD 632 (then part of the Eastern Empire), the burning of the Bogomil 'pope' Basil the Physician in the early 12th century by Emperor Alexius I Comnenus, inquisitions against Judaizers and old believers in Russia following the synod of 1666 with Patriarch Nikon. Many of these activities mirrored the abuses of 'conversion' in the West but are seldom spoken of.

Addressing more objections to "mother of God"

The two most common huddles in my experience to people rejecting the Marian title "mother of God" is 1) poor education in logic, 2) poor education on Christology. The first is a fault of secular education, logic/philosophy is not generally taught in American education until college/university. The second is a general fault of Christian education, though Catholicism has a poorly educated laity, Protestant laity, with few exceptions like Lutheranism, have no real means of synthesizing doctrine. Consequently, Protestants will sometimes call Christ by terms high church Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox would generally object, but not necessarily out of heresy, but out of ignorance. For instance, I heard a radio Protestant preacher refer to Christ as a "human being," certainly he confessed Christ as fully God and fully man, but he likely lacked education behind the meaning of the term person. From experience, a more common issue is, many Protestants do not understand that Christ having two natures makes him both created and uncreated. As a man, Christ is a creature that was conceived of in time in the Virgin Mary. His flesh had a beginning in time and space. Colossians 1:15 recognizes Christ is a creature, the chapter also recognizes him as the Creator who always existed. Though, having a beginning, the created Flesh of Christ was divine itself by the Incarnation, John 1:14 says, "the Word became flesh." For this reason we can say "God died" since God experienced death in the person of the Son in His human nature. Luke 1:35 describes Mary not simply giving birth to the Messiah, but to the "son of God," which is a divine titles meaning He is born of God Himself (as God the Son, Christ is eternally born of the Father, hence the two births of Christ: temporal and eternal)

To deny the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, is to potentially imply a few things:

a) Christ is two persons, the Virgin birth the human one only, which was lately shared/replaced by the Divine person.

b) or that Christ sort of possesses a body in the sense a demon possess a body. Yet the Scriptures states, "the Word became Flesh." 

c) Christ is only "partly God" that is He is only the Son of God, but not God Himself, or that the three persons only collectively can be called "God"

Objection: Mary cannot be mother of God, since Christ is only one person of the Trinity, to be mother of God should have to birth the whole trinity, at most you can call her "mother of God the Son"

Reply: By this reasoning Jesus cannot be ever spoken of as "God" but only "God the Son" yet scripture at times simply calls him "God" as in John 1:1 and John 20:28. Likewise, this reasoning means the Father cannot be called God being only 1 of the 3 persons, same with the Spirit. Few Protestants will deny Christ is God, but they will redefine their terms for the sake of denying the term "mother of God."

To say Christ is only part of God or 1/3rd of God is partialism, which itself can be potentially tritheism.

Objection: God is eternal, Mary is not. She cannot give birth to an eternal being.

Reply: We recognize Mary is created and God is uncreated. We also recognize the Son to be eternally begotten of His Father, that is from before time began and without end into the future. In his humanity he made a birth in time of the Virgin. But since that flesh was the Word also according to John 1:14, and the flesh was brought forth from Mary, it can be said she bore God in a temporal manner, since in entering His creation the Divine joined himself to the created, he was born, suffered and died. 

By the same reasoning as the objection, Muslims say "God cannot die" "God cannot suffer" "God cannot poop" etc and conclude Jesus cannot be God. Yet in the incarnation the Word who is God became flesh, God experienced all these things including having a human mother.

Objection: Only "mother of Lord is biblical" since Luke 1:43 says "mother of my Lord." Again, a created being cannot birth the uncreated God!

Reply: Is the Lord uncreated? Why is it acceptable to say a created human woman is the mother of the uncreated Lord, but once you change the word Lord to God, it becomes objectionable? Lord and God are referring to the same thing, Deity. The terms are interchangeable in the Bible. Did the Spirit inspire Elizabeth to call Christ merely a human lord? The instances of Lord in Luke 1 are to the Lord God.

Objection: You built this doctrine around one single verse, Luke 1:43. Any doctrine should be established by more than one verse!

Reply: Read what the Angel Gabriel said to Mary:

The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God"--Luke 1:35

The title "Son of God" when used in the New Testament for Christ is a term for his Deity, a son has the same nature as his father, likewise the Son of God shares the nature of the Father. 

The Angel said she will give birth to the Son of God, she is, therefore, "mother of the Son of God." Yet Mary is created and the Son of God is without beginning. The scripture did not object to terms like "mother of my Lord" yet those who object to "mother of God" pick at it accuse it of being imprecise, yet the Scriptures do not see the need to limit their words as some do. The scriptures could have said, "the flesh born to you will be called the son of man" which would be consistent with reasoning of some Baptists. 

Objection: The term mother of God is pagan.

Reply: This doesn't stop you from using pagan titles and terms for YHVH and Christ in the Bible. The Pagans also had people that were "sons of God." The pagans also has a god named "El." They also had a god they called "he who rides the clouds." The pagans also had people that were "the image of a god." There are many more examples. Pagan also had gods that could die, gods that were born of virgins, men that were divine,. This object is absurd and conveniently ignores the issue for titles found in the Bible.