Quote:
Medini:
The issue isn't a "beginning" but freedom or inherency - does G-d eternally totally freely do these acts or does He eternally do them because He must do them?


I hope I understand your philosophy/logic:
I think He totally freely does these acts (speaking His Word and breathing His Breath).

Quote:
Medini:
If the former, then the acts eternally exist from non-existence and cannot be G-d unless the same can be said of G-d, which would mean the basic existential limitation on G-d.


So His 'acts' "eternally exist from non-existence and cannot be God".
?
There is a problem here: you seem to be right ( in this that it looks like there must have been a 'moment' of non-existence of the Word/Breath, in which case the Word/Breath cannot be God of course); BUT the existence of the Word/Breath is eternal, came forth from God before all times, and thus their existence has been there from eternity:
the Word/Breath have been generated/brought forth by/from God and 'at the same time' (words are insufficient) their existence is eternal: there 'has never' been non-existence. (I agree with you that in that case the Word/Breath could not be God).

Here is an interesting paradox:
the Word was generated, OK, but the Word ALWAYS WAS (existed).


Quote:
Medini:
If the latter, then G-d is bound by necessity to do these acts, an essential limitation.


The "latter" is not the case.

Quote:
Medini:
So, it remains a problem - either these acts cannot be G-d in any sense or your "G-d" is limited.


Well, it (the mystery of the Nature of God) remains a problem, I don't claim I solved it.

Aad