El Consell 2.0 y su razón de ser

Publicado por FGrau el Febrero 1, 2010 11:18 am en Communication, Concepting, Internet

Equipo de compañer@s de lujo donde los haya, alguien empezó a denominarnos como Consejo 2.0. Nos une nuestra causa, nuestra amistad, nuestras afinidades profesionales y nuestro candidato a las elecciones del FCBarcelona. En un momento que muchos toman el camino de la indefinición, otros hemos abierto el sendero de la comunicación abierta, y apoyar una opción, entre otras, que cree verdaderamente en el poder de la web, las nuevas tecnologías, los socialmedia y en las personas que los manejan ;-)

La candidatura de Sandro Rosell se desvelará, justo en el momento en que el presidente del Barça convoque oficialmente las elecciones, entonces se desplegará todo el engranaje electoral que creemos va a ayudar al socio a comprender las ideas, propuestas y valores que conforman el proyecto de Sandro Rosell.

La creación de este grupo de personas, responde a los principios de (1) coherencia con el medio de comunicación que usaremos (y queremos que se use en el futuro), y de (2) fidelidad a las identidades de cada uno, compatibilizando perfectamente el mensaje del proyecto con el que creemos, junto con la propia personalidad y código personal de cada uno de nosotros. Así es la web 2.0: colaboración, debate, discurso, coherencia (medio) y fidelidad (identidad).

Si quieres sumarte a esta iniciativa pionera, puedes encontrarnos en facebook, twitter, y en cada uno de nuestros espacios digitales :-)

Blog Widget by LinkWithinAquí la shortURL: http://is.gd/AmQTJ1

  • Randall

    Great lesson Jay. verse 6 form above says: 6 “Therefore, say to the Israelites: ‘I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. 7 I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God, who brought you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. 8 And I will bring you to the land I swore with uplifted hand to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. I will give it to you as a possession. I am the LORD.’”
    You put God’s statements that “I will bring you out… I will redeem you… I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God in bold print. May I suggest that those that emphasize the sovereignty of God do exactly the same thing. They place the emphasis on what God does and regard it as primary and regard what man does as secondary and the result of what God does. Someone has said that even Pelagians like Calvinism until someone points it out and then they back off of it. Thus they take a little of the credit and glory that belongs to God and appropriate it to themselves for making the right choice and deciding to give their lives to Jesus. Granted, they don’t see it that way, but it is logical to see it like that when they say the difference between them and a lost person is their free will choice. Calvinists do not deny man making a choice and being responsible for the choice he makes. They just believe the credit for their choice belongs to God rather than themselves.

    A second point has to do with Jesus drinking the cup of wrath. NT Wright seems to be the darling of many progressives in the CofC as well as the emerging church movement. I can’t get my head wrapped around his teaching that Jesus is my substitute but NOT a penal substitute. I wish someone could explain it to me better than what I’ve heard. In your post above Jesus certainly drinks the cup of wrath that is intended for, and deserved by sinners. This seems altogether consistent with the Calvinistic doctrine of penal substitution atonement. That is, he paid the penalty for my sin and his righteousness is imputed to me through faith. Did you intend for us to understand it that way?
    Peace,
    Randall

    This comment was originally posted on One In Jesus.info

  • heavenbound

    NO NO NO! to quote Paul in this instance leaves us with an empty hope.
    Paul was given progressive revelation. The offering of the kingdom was still in his sight. That is why is went to the synagogue first and then to the teaching of a new message that salvation was being offered to the Gentiles. Remember what he said about another gospel? That was mixing law and grace together. The old testament is used to study from a point of where have we come from. Not to be used on where are we going. I really don’t do communion any more because of its Jewish nature you just explained.

    This comment was originally posted on One In Jesus.info

  • rey

    Considering that this whole thing is just a tradition of the elders and that Jesus and the apostles had a tendency of disregarding those, I don’t think any of this is accurate.

    Fascinating article, I never knew that. Um, according to your article, “one-cuppers” would be totally un-biblical in their practice.

    Anyone who is literate can clearly see that he only said “This is the New Covenant ratified by my blood over one cup” regardless however many other cups they had at the Passoever. For example, with the first cup mentioned in Luke he doesn’t ascribe this meaning to it. Only to the second. Just sayin.

    “This seems altogether consistent with the Calvinistic doctrine of penal substitution atonement.” Leave it to a Cavinist to make every discussion about bashing God’s grace.

    “I really don’t do communion any more because of its Jewish nature you just explained.” What does that mean ‘really don’t do communion’?

    This comment was originally posted on One In Jesus.info

  • http://www.oneinjesus.info/ Jay Guin

    Heavenbound,

    If I insisted on Passover as a condition to salvation, that might be another gospel. Understanding the Jewish history behind communion is not remotely another gospel.

    It’s unfathomable to me that you reject communion because of its Jewish roots. Faith has a Jewish nature. So does the concept of a Messiah/Christ. So does Jesus. Christianity has a Jewish nature.

    (Rom 11:24) After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

    We Gentiles were grafted into a Jewish tree. We therefore have and should honor our Jewish roots.

    This comment was originally posted on One In Jesus.info

  • Pingback: El “Consell 2.0″ de la precandidatura de Sandro Rosell : Blog de Jordi Pérez

  • stan

    Heavenbound,

    You stated, “I really don’t do communion any more because of its Jewish nature you just explained.”

    Is that the reason you give Jesus in the assembly when you decide not to take communion? Do you express that thought to Jesus when communion is served? Are you telling me that . . . had you been in the upper room when Jesus was serving the communion meal . . . that you would have said, “No thanks.”

    I don’t understand your reasoning. Anyway, didn’t Jesus say, “Do this in memory of me.” Isn’t the bread and the wine something to embrace? Something To cherish? I would think that someone who was heavenbound would cherish this gift Jesus gave us.

    Some other questions for you:

    My god is the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Is not my god your god? You wouldn’t reject my god would you . . . seeing that he was their god first?

    Wasn’t the “prophet like me” prophesied by the prophet speaking in Deuteronomy 18 . . . Moses the lawgiver? You wouldn’t reject The Prophet Greater Than Moses would you . . . seeing that the very god at work in Moses brought to completion that which Moses prophesied?

    Didn’t Paul tell us to study the scriptures . . . the Jewish scriptures? You wouldn’t reject the Psalms would you?

    This comment was originally posted on One In Jesus.info

  • stan

    Bishop Jay,

    Back to the lesson on the 5 cups. I really found myself nourished by this information, as I do in all of the summaries you are giving us on the faith lessons by Ray Vander Laan.

    After reading the lesson above, it seems to me that the bread that represented his body and the wine that represented his blood were incorporated into a passover meal that was already in practice. So instead of these two things taking the place ot the passover meal, or being instituted as something separate, they were made a part of the passover meal. The passover meal was “upgraded” or reshaped into the communion meal Christ initiated. Am I reading correctly?

    We see this practice in other aspects of what Jesus gave us. Christian baptism is an example that comes to mind. Baptism wasn’t new in Acts 2. There was already a baptism for forgivenss of sins. Jesus took the baptism that John the Baptizer was administering to the people and “upgraded” it. Not only was there foregiveness of sins as John taught . . . but also the gift of the Spirit was promised. A pretty good upgrade!

    So God’s practice of taking existing expressions of faith . . . and incorporating them into new expressions of faith . . . is well established. Did I get this right?

    Is it a stretch to conclude that it was Jesus’ intent to incorporate the symbolism from the original passover meal into the new meal that Christians would partake? This seems reasonable because, as the lesson illustrates, it would help us “understand our own Christianity in much greater depth.” and help us “understand the Lord’s Supper in greater depth.” By dropping the original components of the meal, we have lost the symbolism that Jesus intended to hand to us. Did I read this correctly? Is that what Ray Vander Laan is thinking? Is that where you are leading? I like it.

    This comment was originally posted on One In Jesus.info

  • Pingback: Comsultor 2.0 – Francesc Grau » Tiempos 2.0 en el Barça

  • Pingback: Comsultor 2.0 – Francesc Grau » El Barça no se quedará en fuera de juego social

  • Pingback: Comsultor 2.0 – Francesc Grau » 1000 días en twitter

  • Pingback: Comsultor 2.0 – Francesc Grau » Dídac Lee consigue su Champions League, junto a Sandro Rosell