LDS What caused eternal matter to exist?

[dzheremi]

They are absolutely not on the same path. Can Mormons here please take off the Mormon goggles and recognize that we're talking about a Christian father who departed 1400+ years before Joseph Smith was even born?

Again, it is a question of creator vs. organizer, and also of nature. In Christianity, God is God by nature and the creator of all things, not merely an organizer of preexisting matter (as He created everything, so there is nothing that exists prior to His creation of it). The only things which He did not create are therefore things which are also uncreated by nature (i.e., the Holy Spirit, as per St. John's good homily, and of course Himself and the Father of Whom He is begotten), which do not include the Mormon-specific idea of uncreated intelligences. That is quite simply foreign to Christianity.

You can say that it somehow matches or lines up with your theology, but that is pure eisegesis. Again, our father St, John the golden-mouthed has written:

Do you see the precision of his teaching? He has alluded to the creation of material things, (for concerning these Moses had taught before him,) and after bringing us to advance from thence to higher things, I mean the immaterial and the invisible, he excepts the Holy Spirit from all creation. And so Paul, inspired by the same grace, said, For by Him were all things created. Observe too here again the same exactness. For the same Spirit moved this soul also. That no one should except any created things from the works of God because of their being invisible, nor yet should confound the Comforter with them, after running through the objects of sense which are known to all, he enumerates also things in the heavens, saying, Whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; for the expression whether subjoined to each, shows to us nothing else but this, that by Him all things were made, and without Him was not anything made that was made.

But if you think that the expression by is a mark of inferiority, (as making Christ an instrument), hear him say, You, Lord, in the beginning, hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. He says of the Son what is said of the Father in His character of Creator; which he would not have said, unless he had deemed of Him as of a Creator, and yet not subservient to any. And if the expression by Him is here used, it is put for no other reason but to prevent any one from supposing the Son to be Unbegotten. For that in respect of the title of Creator He is nothing inferior to the Father; hear from Himself, where He says, As the Father raises up the dead and quickens them, even so the Son quickens whom He will. If now in the Old Testament it is said of the Son, You, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, His title of Creator is plain. But if you say that the Prophet spoke this of the Father, and that Paul attributed to the Son what was said of the Father, even so the conclusion is the same. For Paul would not have decided that the same expression suited the Son, unless he had been very confident that between Father and Son there was an equality of honor; since it would have been an act of extremest rashness to refer what suited an incomparable Nature to a nature inferior to, and falling short of it. But the Son is not inferior to, nor falls short of, the Essence of the Father; and therefore Paul has not only dared to use these expressions concerning Him, but also others like them. For the expression from Whom, which you decide to belong properly to the Father alone, he uses also concerning the Son, when he says, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increases with the increase of God.

And he is not content with this only, he stops your mouths in another way also, by applying to the Father the expression by whom, which you say is a mark of inferiority. For he says, God is faithful, by whom you were called unto the fellowship of His Son and again, By His will etc.; and in another place, For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things. Neither is the expression from whom, assigned to the Son only, but also to the Spirit; for the angel said to Joseph, Fear not to take unto you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. As also the Prophet does not deem it improper to apply to the Father the expression in whom, which belongs to the Spirit, when he says, In God we shall do valiantly. [....] In short, we may often and continually find these expressions interchanged; now this would not have taken place, had not the same Essence been in every instance their subject. And that you may not imagine that the words, All things were made by Him, are in this case used concerning His miracles, (for the other Evangelists have discoursed concerning these) he farther goes on to say, He was in the world, and the world was made by Him; (but not the Spirit, for This is not of the number of created things, but of those above all creation.)

(NB: Italics at original; bold added; citations removed to improve readability)

 

[BigDaddy4]

Are human beings "things"? If so, could you explain why it's easier to believe that human beings are "things" than it is to believe that Jesus, His Father, and the Holy Spirit are "things"? If not, then doesn't that leave open the possibility that God didn't create human beings? By the way, I believe that God did create the vast majority of what human beings consist of. I just don't believe that God create their minds. I believe that their minds have always existed.

Genesis 1:7, God breathed life into Adam. You can believe what you want, but it does not line up with, nor is supported by, God's word.

 

[withwonderingawe]

It does not matter, because the fathers do not write or speak at all about eternal 'intelligences' and uncreated matter and all this stuff.

Can you define just what a spirit is, there is no clear definition in the Bible. What Joseph was doing was defining just what a spirit is. One of the qualities which the Trinity claims is that thinking or reasoning can go on out side of matter but there is no biblical passage which supports that concept. It's purely built on prior assumption wrapped up in Greek Philosophy.

I'm reading through "Is Creatio Ex Nihilo A Post-Biblical Invention? An Examination Of Gerhard May's Proposal" it's a pro Ex Nihilo. /earlychurch.org.uk/article_exnihilo_copan.html

" Hinting at these two ideas, Augustine argued that since God alone is Being, he willed to exist what formerly did not exist. So he is not a mere shaper of formless and eternal primordial matter: "You did not work as a human craftsman does, making one thing out of something else as his mind directs... Your Word alone created [heaven and earth]."

See there's the false assumption which Augustine grew up with, it was his view of reality. It has nothing at all to do with the Bible. In the creation story there is a rock with water on it, he does not say let there be water. He says let there be light, his light his light shine down upon it. He doesn't create the sun until verse 16.

"Before" the creation, God was all that there was - there was no empty space or a dark void or non-existence, and he himself is both "pure and eternal existence and the source of all other existence, which is derived from and dependent on his existence."

This again goes back to being and not being, God alone is being all else is not being or an illusion. That is Greek philosophy.

Tatian became the "first Christian theologian known to us who expressly advanced the proposition that matter was produced by God" ... Following on his heels, Theophilus of Antioch asserted it more forcefully: "God has created everything out of nothing into being."

So neither Paul and Peter or any other Biblical person advance the idea?

It is odd how they rearranged the concept
Middle Platonism, which ran from the latter half of the first century BC to the first half of the third century AD, significantly figures in our discussion. The central metaphysical theme of Plato, the doctrine of Ideas, came to be replaced by God. Even though God was the Ground of all Being, the eternity of matter was generally accepted. May argues that the Christian doctrine of creation was completed in its controversy with Middle Platonism,"

So they dropped the idea of "eternity of matter" and kept the being and not being.

"The Jewish theologian, Philo of Alexandria, makes statements that at times reflect the belief that God's creating was actually a shaping of pre-existing matter: "Just as nothing comes into being out of that which has no existence, so nothing is destroyed into that which has no existence."

Scientifically he's right you can not destroy an atom, you can change it by heating it up or cooling it down, splinting it up and rearranging it but it's still there. Nor can you call one into existence.

"6 ¶And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

In Mormon theology God/El commands God/Yahweh, He says okay now it's time for the firmament to be made here's the direction. Then Yahweh goes and actually does the making.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Sorry, this is not a true representation of what Mormons believe, it is far from it. Therefore anything else you say is of no importance, since you either know you are not telling the truth or you just ignorantly do not know the truth. Either way it is not a good quality to have.

Here is a closer version of what Mormons believe. Mormons believe God and Jesus were once mortal men.
Even in their mortality they were sinless and because of their sinlessness, they were able to save all their fellow men from their sins.

So then mormongs don't believe that God and Jesus were men as we are?

Because here's what mormonism teaches:
"We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were said by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: "As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become." This is a power available to us as we reach perfection and receive the experience and power to create, to organize, to control native elements. How limited we are now! We have no power to force the grass to grow, the plants to emerge, the seeds to develop."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, April 1977

Are you willing to state that Spencer Kimball was wrong in his quote?


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

 

[ArmenianJohn]

You have been repeatedly corrected on this false statement.

And this false statement.

This is a straw man argument.

Would you like to understand and correct your misunderstandings?

I have never "been corrected" on this, and feel free to try. I have the quotes of Mormon prophets who say that God once was as man is.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

That is not true!

We believe that Jesus is Yahweh of the Old Testament, he took on flesh and lived a sinless life. In fact if he had sinned he could not have fulfilled the atonement, only a sinless God could do it.

Joseph Smith taught that God the Father went through the same experience as Jesus did, he used John 5
"The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: ...For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will .... For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.."

So how could God and Jesus have ever been men as we are (i.e. sinful) if they went through the same experience that we go through (i.e. sinful)? Either they were men but unlike us because they were sinless OR they were men like us because they were also sinful. Which is it? I'm getting different answers from different mormons.

 

[withwonderingawe]

So then mormongs don't believe that God and Jesus were men as we are?

Because here's what mormonism teaches:
"We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were said by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: "As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become." This is a power available to us as we reach perfection and receive the experience and power to create, to organize, to control native elements. How limited we are now! We have no power to force the grass to grow, the plants to emerge, the seeds to develop."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, April 1977

Are you willing to state that Spencer Kimball was wrong in his quote?


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

He's was right but one passage does not make doctrine, here is sort of where the basic idea comes from;

"First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, is a man like one of you. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today and you were to see the great God who holds this world in its orbit and upholds all things by his power, you would see him in the image and very form of a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion and image of God. He received instruction from and walked, talked, and conversed with him as one man talks and communes with another....it is the simple and first principle of the gospel-to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another. God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible." (Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse)

Joseph then quoted John 5

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

The idea is that Jesus is following in his Father's footsteps. As Jesus suffered for our sins the Father suffered for the sins of others on another planet, as the Son was resurrected so to was the Father, as Jesus will raise us from the dead his Father raise the dead on his planet.

Now truthfully this is a theory, we really have not been given a lot of information beyond what is in this quote from Joseph Smith. Different Mormons will have different theories and some just leave the whole concept alone. It's not important to our salvation so it just remains one of the mysteries.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

He's was right but one passage does not make doctrine, here is sort of where the basic idea comes from;

"First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, is a man like one of you. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today and you were to see the great God who holds this world in its orbit and upholds all things by his power, you would see him in the image and very form of a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion and image of God. He received instruction from and walked, talked, and conversed with him as one man talks and communes with another....it is the simple and first principle of the gospel-to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another. God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible." (Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse)

Joseph then quoted John 5

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

The idea is that Jesus is following in his Father's footsteps. As Jesus suffered for our sins the Father suffered for the sins of others on another planet, as the Son was resurrected so to was the Father, as Jesus will raise us from the dead his Father raise the dead on his planet.

Now truthfully this is a theory, we really have not been given a lot of information beyond what is in this quote from Joseph Smith. Different Mormons will have different theories and some just leave the whole concept alone. It's not important to our salvation so it just remains one of the mysteries.

So then how can you and the others tell me I am "wrong"??? All you have is a theory and you are admitting it's a theory and that you don't KNOW. Meanwhile, I have the quotes of the mormon "prophets" and "apostles" who taught that God was once a man "as we are". Not once a man but different form how we are because he was sinless - no, they say "as we are". Well, we are sinful - so they are teaching that God was once a sinful man.

That's what the mormon "prophets" and "apostles" teach, I restate what they taught and then you and the others tell me I'm "wrong", then you tell me you don't know because all you have is a theory.

Which is it? Do you KNOW and can therefore tell me I'm wrong (and if so, provide the evidence for your "knowledge") OR you DON'T know and are wrong to tell me that I'm wrong?

 

[withwonderingawe]

So then how can you and the others tell me I am "wrong"??? All you have is a theory and you are admitting it's a theory and that you don't KNOW. Meanwhile, I have the quotes of the mormon "prophets" and "apostles" who taught that God was once a man "as we are". Not once a man but different form how we are because he was sinless - no, they say "as we are". Well, we are sinful - so they are teaching that God was once a sinful man.

That's what the mormon "prophets" and "apostles" teach, I restate what they taught and then you and the others tell me I'm "wrong", then you tell me you don't know because all you have is a theory.

Which is it? Do you KNOW and can therefore tell me I'm wrong (and if so, provide the evidence for your "knowledge") OR you DON'T know and are wrong to tell me that I'm wrong?

Was Jesus a mortal man like us, did he feel pain like us, did he feel sorrow like us? Yes, he was truly mortal. Was he tempted? Yes he was but he did not succumb to the temptation, unlike us he remained perfect.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Was Jesus a mortal man like us, did he feel pain like us, did he feel sorrow like us? Yes, he was truly mortal. Was he tempted? Yes he was but he did not succumb to the temptation, unlike us he remained perfect.

So he wasn't a man "as we are". You yourself said "unlike us". He was sinless, we are sinful.

Since you admit this you are admitting that you believe the mornon apostles and prophets were wrong and that God never was as we are.

How can you disagree with the prophets and apostles if they were prophets and apostles who are supposed to be right about these matters?

 

[withwonderingawe]

So he wasn't a man "as we are". You yourself said "unlike us". He was sinless, we are sinful.

Since you admit this you are admitting that you believe the mornon apostles and prophets were wrong and that God never was as we are.

How can you disagree with the prophets and apostles if they were prophets and apostles who are supposed to be right about these matters?

Like us they could have sinned but they choose not to.

What you are doing is taking one passage without looking at the whole doctrine. When Pres. Kimball was speaking he was addressing Mormons who would have understood his point and the doctrine behind it Can I take the passage 'Faith without works is dead' and understand the whole concept of grace?

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Like us they could have sinned but they choose not to.

Right - so unlike us they were perfect, sinless. They were not as we are.

Think of the flip side of the claim that "God once was as we (men) are"... i.e., "as God is man may become". So, as God is right now, man (all men) MAY become.

So the second half of that belief as taught by the apostles and prophets of mormonism states that sinful man MAY become as God IS.

Obviously, Mormonism believes that a sinful being MAY BECOME a perfect, sinless being. It's never explained how a being that has had sin can become sinless but it's certainly taught in this teaching that God was once like man and man may become like God.

So why all the dodging of the fact that mormons believe that their God or gods were once sinful men? That is quite clearly the teaching of the mormon apostles and prophets.

 

[Ran77]

The only contradiction is that which you made up. Jesus, God, and Holy Spirit are not "things". Your point fails after that.

Really? That's your response?

It doesn't seem that you are following the discussion. We can try this again when you are up to dealing with the facts.

 

[Ran77]

If their minds always existed, did your god know what was in those minds? Did he know if those minds were were pliable?

Why would it matter?

 

[dzheremi]

It is very interesting to me that when non-Mormons like ArmenianJohn or Phoebe Ann take the statements of the Mormon apostles and prophets and interpret them according to what they seem to be saying they are told that they are not understanding and must 'look at the whole doctrine' in order to understand it, yet at the same time Mormons in this thread have seen no problem in taking bits and pieces of the posted writings of the Christian fathers as being confirmation of Mormonism despite how utterly anachronistic that is, and how doing so completely ignores the writings and their contexts.

And by 'interesting', I mean gross.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Right - so unlike us they were perfect, sinless. They were not as we are.

did you see my edit

But there is another point, I'm a sinner and one day I will stand before my Heavenly Father sinless, the atonement of Christ completely forgives and wipes my sins away as if they never occurred.

Now I do believe that Jesus and our Father in Heaven were sinless because only a sinless being can bring about an atonement however I also believe I will be 'as he is' some day.

 

[Ran77]

Bite your tongue/fingers. Obviously he is talking about the Holy Spirit, against those who would say (as some did) that the Holy Spirit was created (the pneumatomachoi -- 'spirit fighters' -- claimed exactly this). You are wrong, however, to think of this as an 'exception', because what he is saying is that as the Holy Spirit is uncreated, He cannot therefore be placed into the class of created things, for He is God. He's not God 'as an exception' to other things not being God any more than God the Father of the Son could be thus termed 'exceptions'. Is that what you believe about God the Father, as a Mormon, that He is God by exception to an ontological, philosophical rule rather than by nature? if so, Mormonism is even stranger than I have been led to believe.

What part of my point was not clear to you? Your boy St. John makes a claim about the Lord creating all that exists. Then he goes back and makes exceptions to that claim. He didn't create Himself, He didn't create God, and He didn't create the Holy Spirit. Even if you take out the obvious, He didn't create Himself, that still leaves two other exceptions to what the Bible states.

It's humorous that the Christians want to stick to the rigid interpretation of all/all things when they argue their point, but when it the flaw with that view is shown they start trotting out exceptions to this all-inclusive category. Where does it specifically state, in the Bible, that the Genesis account of the creation actually meant: the Lord created all things except (whatever exceptions you are going to through out)? I would like to see the Biblical verse that makes these exceptions.

As to what I believe, I believe that this is a desperate effort by the Christian community to gloss over a contradiction in the Bible so they won't have to admit that their interpretation doesn't fit all that the Bible has to say on the matter. There is no two ways about it, St. John is making exceptions to the straight-forward statement that the Lord created all that exists.

 

[Ran77]

It is very interesting to me that when non-Mormons like ArmenianJohn or Phoebe Ann take the statements of the Mormon apostles and prophets and interpret them according to what they seem to be saying they are told that they are not understanding and must 'look at the whole doctrine' in order to understand it, yet at the same time Mormons in this thread have seen no problem in taking bits and pieces of the posted writings of the Christian fathers as being confirmation of Mormonism despite how utterly anachronistic that is, and how doing so completely ignores the writings and their contexts.

And by 'interesting', I mean gross.

Yeah, I don't state that. I'm content with pointing out that they are wrong and how they have twisted our actual doctrines. I'm happy to do that anytime you need me to. I'm unconcerned whether they understand it or not. I only care whether it is presented in the way that we actually believe, without additions, twists, and creative interpretations.

Feel free to do the same rather than complaining.

 

[Rescued One]

So then mormongs don't believe that God and Jesus were men as we are?

Because here's what mormonism teaches:
"We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were said by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: "As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become." This is a power available to us as we reach perfection and receive the experience and power to create, to organize, to control native elements. How limited we are now! We have no power to force the grass to grow, the plants to emerge, the seeds to develop."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, April 1977

Are you willing to state that Spencer Kimball was wrong in his quote?
[/FONT]

“. . . We must go through the same ordeal in order to attain to the glory and exaltation which God designed we should enjoy with Him in the eternal worlds. In other words, we must become like Him; peradventure to sit upon thrones, to have dominion, power, and eternal increase. God designed this in the beginning. We are the children of God. . . . We are precisely in the same condition and under the same circumstances that God our heavenly Father was when He was passing through this, or a similar ordeal.”
(Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed.[1939], 64.)

Forty-five years later, it was still being taught:

President Joseph F. Smith said: "We are precisely in the same condition and under the same circumstances that God our heavenly Father was when he was passing through this, or a similar ordeal" (Gospel Doctrine, p. 64).
Search These Commandments, Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, Copyright 1984, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, p. 154

 

[dzheremi]

Your boy St. John

This is a very rude way to speak about one of the great fathers of the Christian Church. Please keep in mind that this is a Christian messageboard.

makes a claim about the Lord creating all that exists. Then he goes back and makes exceptions to that claim.

I'm not sure if you just didn't read the source (I linked the entire thing, and brought from it to this conversation the illustrative points) or if you simply so convinced that it must either support Mormonism or be something to be scoffed at, but St. John Chrysostom goes to great length to establish just what is being talked about here, and what isn't, as well as why. For instance: "And that you may not think that he merely speaks of all the things mentioned by Moses, he adds, that without Him was not anything made that was made. That is to say, that of created things, not one, whether it be visible or intelligible was brought into being without the power of the Son." I have already highlighted in other posts where he specifically mentions what is unmade and hence meant to be specifically left out from this statement (e.g., the Spirit), which you have called very ignorantly 'an exception' and we call God by nature (essence, ousia, etc.).

He didn't create Himself, He didn't create God, and He didn't create the Holy Spirit. Even if you take out the obvious, He didn't create Himself, that still leaves two other exceptions to what the Bible states.

Again, you have not apprehended the meaning of what you have read, neither in the Holy Bible itself nor in St. John Chrysostom's commentary on it. I even placed it in bold in another post where the good saint specifies that the Holy Spirit is not among the class of things which are created (hence of course Jesus Christ did not create Him; He was not created by anyone or anything, period), so you must simply stop arguing as though He is based on Mormonism's materialist viewpoint. At that point, and not before, can you begin to understand the Christian faith and all that is in it. Until then, what can even one of the greatest orators of the Christian faith do for you?

It's humorous that the Christians want to stick to the rigid interpretation of all/all things when they argue their point, but when it the flaw with that view is shown they start trotting out exceptions to this all-inclusive category.

Your own view based on Mormonism's erroneous and heretical theology, cosmology, and anthropology does not make Christian theology 'flawed'. No.

Where does it specifically state, in the Bible, that the Genesis account of the creation actually meant: the Lord created all things except (whatever exceptions you are going to through out)? I would like to see the Biblical verse that makes these exceptions.

And I would like to see Mormons stop becoming magically 'Bible-only' when convenient, so I guess we'll both be left wanting. You won't be finding any Bible verses that specifically state anything about uncreated eternal 'intelligences', either, so it's a bit much to attempt to push such a standard on those who never argued according to it in the first place when you cannot adhere to it yourselves.

As to what I believe, I believe that this is a desperate effort by the Christian community to gloss over a contradiction in the Bible so they won't have to admit that their interpretation doesn't fit all that the Bible has to say on the matter.

Again, you not understanding something doesn't mean there's any contradiction. You've created this false paradigm that is explicitly condemned by the early church itself and then claimed that we somehow can't account for it when the answers are right there before you from 1600 years ago, you just do not have the mind of the early Church with you when reading them, so you can only see reflections of your own anti-Christ, anti-Biblical doctrine, to a greater or lesser degree. And this other peoples' fault how? It isn't. You cannot but parrot the Mormon cosmology even when it is soundly rebuffed by the fathers who predate us all and learned themselves at the feet of the apostles and their disciples, the bishops established by them. So I will treat your baseless and uninformed condemnations with the same gravity with which you and your religion treat the early Church itself.

There is no two ways about it.

Indeed.

St. John is making exceptions to the straight-forward statement that the Lord created all that exists.

The point is that all that exists is not the same as all that was made, because God exists and He was not made.