slimboyfat....Well, the main issue with the text of course is that it was interpolated by Pseudo-Ignatius in the third or fourth century but the interpolations are clearly identified by the many witnesses of the shorter recension attested in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Armenian, Arabic, and Coptic. In particular, the earliest witness of the shorter recension, a Greek papyrus specifically of Smyrnaeans, confirms Lightfoot's earlier analysis. In the case of anestésen heauton in Smyrnaeans 2:1, there is no textual variation between the longer and shorter recensions here. I mention Ignatius because his work shows an affinity with Johannine thought and this may constitute one point of contact.
Leolaia says that the idea of the body dissolving and being replaced is a modern theory of "re-creation" that bears no relation to what Jews at the time believed. This is a popular accusation made against the Witnesses' view of resurrection, but I am not sure that it holds in view of the following description by Paul.
The reference to the body being "destroyed" in 2 Corinthians 5 is parallel to the reference to the body being "corruptible" and "perishable" in 1 Corinthians 15, and the reference to putting on the dwelling from heaven pertains to Paul's description of the resurrection body as heavenly and glorious like other heavenly bodies, a spiritual rather than a physical body. The corruptible body is sown in the ground like a seed (1 Corinthians 15:26-28), and then "God gives it the sort of body that he has chosen" (v. 28), i.e. it is "changed" into imperishability (v. 52), a transformation that Paul also mentions in Philippians 3:21 ("he will transform these wretched bodies of ours into the form of his glorious body"). Note that Paul says that God gives the body another body in v. 38, just as he says that "corruption must clothe itself with incorruption and the mortal with immortality" (v. 53-54), and that it is better for God "to put the second garment over it" rather than "stripping off" our mortal body (2 Corinthians 5:4). This again establishes continuity between the two. What Paul does not care much for is the intermediate state of being "naked" in the time between death and resurrection, a time when the body sees corruption and before one can have the new garment of heaven (v. 2-3), but at least he will be "with the Lord" when he becomes exiled "from the body" (v. 8-9), and that is very desirable for him. Note also the use of Platonic terms here (body as a "tent" and being bodiless as a state of "nakedness"), which implies the survival of some internal essence after death -- a view explicitly denied by the Society and its pseudo-resurrection teaching.
Hellrider....Everyone is certainly justified in pointing out that throughout most of the NT and especially in the Pauline letters, Jesus is depicted as raised by God. This was the dominant view and it reflects Paul's view of Christ as subject to God (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:3, 15:28) and glorified by God through his humility (cf. Romans 1:4, Philippians 2:6-11). But this does not mean that the author of John had the same christological view and talked about Jesus' resurrection in the same way. We already know that Johannine theology is distinctive in many ways and that the christological debates of the second century drew on the theological diversity of the first century. For instance, the author of John depicts the Son and the Father as more on a level plane than Paul ever did (e.g. John 1:1, which suggests that the Son is everything that God is, 5:19 which says that "whatever the Father does the Son does also," 5:22 which says that "the Father judges no one for he was entrusted all judgment to the Son," 5:26 which says that the Son is the "source of life" just as the Father is the source of life, 10:30 which says that "the Father and I are one," 10:38 which says that "the Father is in me and I am in the Father," 14:7 which says that "if you know me you know my Father," 14:11 which says that "I am in the Father and the Father is in me," etc.). Thus in John Jesus has just as much power and authority to bring life and to resurrect as the Father, and whatever the Father does he does as well, so it is not hard to understand that in the Johannine view the Resurrection through the power of both the Son and the Father. We know that the idea in John 2:19-22 is not unique in the gospel as well:
John 2:19-22: "Jesus answered, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up'. ... But he was speaking of the temple that was his body, and when Jesus rose from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this".
John 10:17-18: "The Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me; I lay it down of my own free will, and just as it is within my power to lay it down, so it is also in my power to take it up again".
Another text that belongs to the wider Johannine branch of Christianity, the Odes of Solomon, gives another interesting example. Jesus declares that "He who knew me and exalted me is the Most High in all his perfection and he glorified me by his kindness" (17:7-8), and yet he describes his liberation from Hades in the following way: "I opened the doors which were closed and I shattered the bars of iron for my own irons had grown hot and melted before me and nothing appeared closed to me, because I was the opening of everything, I went toward all my bondsmen in order to loose them ... and I gave my knowledge generously and my resurrection through my love" (17:9-13). The joint agency is also mentioned in ch. 22: "He who caused me to descend from on high and to ascend from the regions below ... he who gave me authority over chains so that I might loosen them, he who overthrew by my hands the dragon with seven heads" (22:1-5).
