I have reason to believe that by looking at context and the internal evidence we can conclude that John, the apostle, enjoyed a very close relationship with Jesus. He was the one whom Jesus used to love, as referred to in his Gospel. At the final evening meal, John reclined next to Jesus, and it was he to whom Jesus, when on the torture stake, gave the special privilege of taking Jesus' mother, Mary, into his own home and caring for her as if she were his own mother-John 13:23; 19:25-27; 20:2; 21:20.
This mutual bond between Jesus and John did not arise out of physical attraction. Nor was John a sentimentalist, though it is true he spoke much about love. Actually, true and sincere Godlike love is a strong, pure quality, closely linked with loyalty. In all his writings, John manifested a strong love and loyalty toward Jesus Christ. Jesus, who knew what was in man, greatly appreciated this quality in John, and so a deep attachment was formed between them.
A unique feature of John's Gospel is his never referring to himself by name. Whenever he mentions John he means John the Baptist. The other three Gospel writers logically distinguish between the two Johns, but not he apostle John. When he refers to himself it is either as one of the sons of Zebedee, his father, or as the disciple whom Jesus loved-John 21:2, 20. This same characteristic of not naming himself is evident at John 18:15,16. Furthermore, John and Peter are linked in the account at John 20:2-8. These indications suggest that the apostle John was that disciple [who] was known to the high priest. The Bible does not provide background information as to how the Galilean apostle (John) might have got to know, and got to be known by, the high priest. But his being known by the household of the high priest enabled John to get past the doorkeeper into the courtyard and to gain entrance for Peter also.
All four of the Gospel writers--Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John--record that on the night of Jesus' arrest, one of his disciples drew a sword and struck a slave of the high priest, taking off the man's ear. Only the Gospel of John reports a seemingly unnecessary detail: "The name of the slave was Malchus." (John 18:10,26) Why does John alone give the man's name? A few verses later the account provides a minor fact not stated anywhere else: He "was known to the high priest." He was also known to the high priest's household; the servants were acquainted with him, and he with them. (John 18:15,16) It was only natural, then, that John mention the injured man's name, whereas the other Gospel writer, to whom the man was a stranger, do not.
As I have already said in my previous posts in this thread, I am totally convinced that John is the beloved disciple of Jesus, but nowhere, in the Bible is John said to be the beloved, nor is it anywhere said that the beloved is John, You have taken this from John 13: 23, (At the final evening meal, John reclined next to Jesus,) but you are putting words into the Bible that are not there, this verse states that the beloved disciple reclined next to Jesus, but nowhere is he identified as John.
When you say He, you are not referring to John here, but to the beloved, (and it was He to whom Jesus, when on the torture stake, gave the special privilege of taking Jesus' mother, Mary, into his own home and caring for her as if she were his own mother) John 19: 25-27, Jesus saw his mother and the disciple he loved,-- but the disciple he loved is not identified as John.The Gospel of John was not actually written by John, but by a group transcribing from his written accounts. I believe that John was the only disciple that is recorded as having, been at the cross with the mother of Jesus, Mary the wife of Cleophas and her sister, sister in law or half sister, Mary Magdalene, even though he is not mentioned by name, because the scribes who recounted the words of John, say in John 19: 35, when referring to the blood and water that ran from the wound in the side of Jesus (The one who saw this happen has spoken of it, so that you also may believe. What he said was true, and he knows that he speaks the truth.)
And again, it is made abundantly clear that the one referred to by the scribe, or rather scribes who actually wrote the Gospel of John, knew that John was the beloved disciple of Jesus when they referred to the one that Jesus had said to Peter in reference to the disciple that he loved, (If I want that he should live until I come, what is that to you?) and then, they go on to say in John, 21: 24, He is the disciple who spoke these things, the one who also wrote them down; and we, (Those who transcribed the words of John) know that what he said is true.
At the last supper that Jesus had with his disciples on the night before the Passover Lambs were to be slaughtered, Jesus sent Judas to do what had to be done in accordance to the plan of God, and Judas went and gathered the Temple guards and the Roman soldiers and took them to the Garden where he identified Jesus as the one that the Jewish authorities wanted arrested, undoubtedly he would have returned with the group to collect his reward, and as Peter is the only other disciple that was there in the courtyard with Judas, I am convinced, that John was definitely not present there, but would have been with the mother of Jesus comforting her in the day that the sword of suffering pierced her heart.
