“Let us now turn our attention to another point in this connection. The first noticeable fact is that John, the beloved disciple, gives no account or even intimation of the “Miraculous Conception” of his Master; and he more than all the other disciples had opportunity to know in regard to this, because “when Jesus therefore saw his mother and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home.” If Mary lived with John, which no doubt she did for some years, he more than all the others would be expected to be thoroughly familiar with all the facts concerning his Master, including those relating to his conception and birth, especially, if his conception was as wonderful as that recorded by Matthew and by Luke.
Another fact is prominent in this connection; namely, in all the preaching of the apostles, beginning with the book of Acts to the last chapter of Revelation, there is not one reference to Christ’s miraculous conception, but on the contrary, they preached him as a man (Acts 2:22; 10:34-43) as one of their brethren. As Paul so plainly expresses it: “Wherefore it behooved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.”
Now, if Christ was Divinely Begotten, he certainly was not in all points like unto his brethren, but he had every advantage over any other man that ever had lived. If the doctrine of the miraculous conception is essentially a part of the Christian religion, why is it that Mark, John, Paul and all the apostles whose letters constitute the New Testament, never mention it?
Let us again turn to Matthew’s Gospel. He begins his account with the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Mark you, he says, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham”, and he closes it as he would the genealogy of any other person by saying, “and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” Now this is either the genealogy of Jesus Christ, or it is not. If it is the genealogy of Jesus Christ, then Joseph was his father; if it is not the genealogy of Jesus Christ, then God was his father; in the latter case Joseph had nothing to do with it, and the tracing of the genealogy through Joseph is all sham – there is nothing in it. We are here brought face to face with some very stubborn facts.
Let us see what Luke says in his genealogy; he begins it with these words: “And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli…”, et cetera, (Luke 3:23). Without the parenthesis it reads, “being the son of Joseph, the son of Heli…”, et cetera, and he closes the genealogy as follows, ‘the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God’, and here the tracing ends.
Was not Jesus the son of God as much as Adam? Why then this genealogy at all. For if the Miraculous Conception is a truth, it is not the genealogy of Jesus Christ, as he had no genealogy. You may say that this is the genealogy of Mary, but Mary is not mentioned, neither is the genealogy of woman ever counted in the Bible; and even if the genealogy of Mary had been given, it would be traced to Ruth, the Moabitess, for she was the ancestor of Mary, and Jesus would not have come of the seed of Abraham, but of the seed of Lot. But why these difficulties; and why are these things as they are?”
Hiram Butler
The Mark Of God: Understanding Your "I AM Presence" 