Quote:
Medini:
Existence from non-existence is not a temporal state, an after and a before, but an ontological condition that is the precisely the existential state of any truly free activity, any activity to which the actor is not bound in any way and in which the actor remains exactly the same as if he were not acting, as if the action did not exist.
Hence, it is applicable to eternal activity just as to temporal activity, and means that even eternal activity
cannot be G-d in any sense unless your G-d is existentially limited to the state of existence from
non-existence.


Do I get this right: "the state of existence from non-existence": is this your definition or requirement for the status of (a) God?

Quote:
Medini:
No there is no must here, there is only absolute freedom from any nature or obligation or boundary at all. I have no concept of G-d, but allow certain concepts to open me to G-d (see more below).


OK

Quote:
Medini:
There is no idea of G-d here at all; simply allowing certain special names (like Ekyeh or YKVK) or terms (like Absolute Infinity or Absolute Freedom) to open our minds to G-d through their own self-negation. Let me explain:
These terms or names are intrinsically definition-transcending, definition-negating. All words are just sounds or letters, having no meaning without referents. Ordinary terms are meaningless unless they are defined by reference to the defined. By contrast, intrinsically definition-transcending terms are meaningless the moment they are defined or conceptualized, meaningless unless they remain truly undefined and referentially open.
Such referential openness obviously requires them (as far as the sounds or visual letters that mark [denote], but dont conceptually or ontologically define, them) to entirely get out of the way. Unless they always push us beyond any conceptualization or definition, even their own defining sounds, letters or referential stance, they become completely meaningless self-contradictory gibberish. Their self-negation is intrinsic and complete.
Thus, such a term always pushes us beyond itself, always eludes definition thereby opening the mind rather than closing it around any defined, hence finite, concept.


On this level of abstraction I agree. It is like what I quoted from the Tao Te Ching (I am not familliar with the Zohar):
"The name that can be defined is not the unchanging name."

Quote:
Medini:
And what you miss here is that if G-d is truly Free, truly Infinite, then He is free from any nature or self to become bound or dependent even as He freely acts in bound or dependent (finite) ways. In this way, He can freely be all finites without ceasing to be free from every finite, meaning that all the finites He freely can be will not be Him, and that He will freely be them as not Him.


OK, I follow this: even in His dependency He is always independent/unbound/free.

Quote:
Medini:
All of your examples are subject to this same truth, a truth that means that while G-d freely can be any finite, no finite will be or can be Him....


Right: no finite will be or can be Him.

Quote:
Medini:
thereby refuting the Trinity or any other attempt to view any defined, distinguishable, finite as G-d.


Wrong. The Trinity is not about a defined finite being viewed as God. Everything you said applies to God as One Being, existence from non-existence (from christian perspective Father Word and Spirit). I don't see the 'defined finite'. Maybe you meant the finiteness of Jesus. But this is also applicable to Jesus, who is the union of God and man without (con)fusion: this description is important exactly because of the philosophical reasoning you just gave. The human nature of Jesus did not become God and never was God: the human nature has been 'assumed' by God and assumed into the realm of God (taken up into heaven): the ultimate destination of mankind, without ever tranforming into God.

Aad