ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) is essential to Wiley's mission of unlocking human potential.For over two centuries, Wiley has a history of helping the world's researchers, learners, innovators, and leaders achieve their goals and solve the world's most important challenges.We take our role as a corporate citizen seriously and are guided by transparency, accountability, and industry best practices.Through intentional climate action and strategic social impact, ESG advances Wiley's commitment to sustainability, positive impact, and leading global change.Follow our progress at https://www.

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Abstract This article investigates the linkage between Rahner's conception of the human person's relationship with being and with God, and the early Heidegger's understanding of Dasein in relation to the horizon of death. This paper argues that Rahner's attempt to rehabilitate these concepts in his Spirit in the World and Theology of Death distances him from Heidegger in important ways, even as it raises new methodological questions for fundamental theology. Although Rahner boldly redefines the concept of death and even being itself in relation to the Trinity, his approach to Christian faith and to those elements of Aquinas's thought that he chooses to retain expose the risks of an exclusively theological response to the challenges posed by transcendental thought. This paper concludes by suggesting that a return to pre‐transcendental scholastic accounts of being can provide a more secure foundation for the theological concepts that Rahner seeks to defend.

Abstract Friedrich Nietzsche and Eberhard Arnold, founder of the Bruderhof communities, both struggled with a tension between scientific, balanced analysis and a visionary call to a fuller experience of life. Nietzsche moved from a balance of Apollonian and Dionysian factors in life, to a unitary vision of the will to power and individual development. Arnold began with a balance of creation and re‐creation, but shifted to a focus on the will to community. Arnold's path here highlights the need to respond to Nietzsche according to Nietzsche's own style, to address his concerns. But it also shows that the need to balance scientific and visionary modes of knowing may also require the deep community that Arnold proposes.

Abstract The following article discusses Paul's conception of change regarding the resurrection body in 1 Cor 15:42‐44a. Our thesis is that Paul uses a popular Hellenistic cosmology and account of change to explain how the transformation of the body is possible. He uses seed imagery to contrast the pre‐and‐post‐resurrection bodies … the mortal and immortal bodies. Using rhetorical accommodation techniques, he resolves the Corinthian confusion regarding physical resurrection using popular Hellenistic ideas. Whereas some interpreters think that the resurrection body is terrestrial, others find a rarefied extraction of matter like the Stoic material soul or a holistic transformation into a rarefied and/or celestial element fitted to a polarized heavenly environment. Our interpretation is characterized by material continuity and integrative rather than absolute polarity. Though Paul conceives of material continuity, he says nothing of rarefied bodies or their natural habitat. Jesus's resurrection and anticipated return suggest a transformation of the ‘flesh’ into a body capable of traversing both heavenly‐earthly spheres. Some think this view is incoherent, because it combines two incompatible conceptions of resurrection. Paul's solution seems to be that the resurrection body changes its properties as needed, depending on its environment. Hence, it never exemplifies incompatible properties at the same time.