A question.

If you were going to die and a stranger pushed you out of the way and died for you, would you be passive about it? 

An analogy.

You are alive and healthy but have amnesia.  There are people who swear that someone pushed you out of the way of a truck and saved your life, sacrificing his well-being instead.  Someone that they know.  But you cannot remember clearly.

It is a clear possibility that the only reason you're living is because of this person. 
You don't take time to ask the witnesses that say the stranger was hit in your stead.  You don't take time to ask about this person, or find him.  After all, this is a person whom you cannot ascertain actually exists, because you have neither time nor energy to waste on trying to seek out the truth.

You're living, and you know you're living, so that is that.

---------------------

If the above scenario really did occur, would we remain passive?  Humankind has always found affinity with the idea of noble sacrifice for the sake of another-- characters in literature and films are often heroes for that very reason.  If we are so affected by a sacrifice made for someone else, shouldn't we be impacted and transformed by a sacrifice made for us, because of our guilt and imperfection, by someone who had no share in our sin but paid for it in death?  It is obvious what would be done in the case above.  So how can we be passive about a similar situation possibly infinitely more importance?

"Christianity, if true, is of infinite importance.  If false, it is of no importance.  The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

If there was a possibility that a person saved you from getting hit by a truck and became a paralytic instead of you, if true, it would be of incredible importance to you.  If not, if there was no such situation with a truck, then there was no great sacrifice and you would not waste your time looking for the nonexistent savior.

Though the analogy is imperfect,
Jesus is represented by the person who is said to have been hit in your stead.  He faced the infinite wrath of God on the cross, was forsaken, and died for us, to pay the punishment for our sin.  Side note for those narrowing their eyes while reading “our sin”: How do we measure our goodness?  If the point of reference is a God who is absolutely holy, and we do, say, 5 bad things a day, that adds up.  We can do our best to be good, but we cannot work our way up to perfection and save ourselves.

If the creator of the universe, completely holy, humbled himself to be born into the world and die for the sake of saving mankind, that is of infinite importance.  To address the immensity of this claim, it seems more logical to contemplate it sincerely and look for evidence rather than ignore the possibility without knowing what is actually being dismissed.  Sometimes there is reliance on preconceived or maybe erroneous notions, even though they are countered by the most critical of historical scholars*

Isn’t it fair to seriously contemplate and gather reliable information about a question that, if true, would involve the single most momentous event in the history of the universe?

*... for instance, eye witness accounts and Jesus’ claim of divinity are dismissed by some skeptics, while affirmed by scholars.

The Gospels were written around the time period of the same generation that would have witnessed Jesus’ resurrection, and therefore people would have protested had no one seen a resurrected Jesus, especially considering that names of witnesses are actually recorded.  Fabrication is rather out of the question; a few of the various reasons: the Gospels record the disciples' behavior, which makes them look pretty bad at times.  Also, the disciples who were martyred would not have died in the name of Christianity had they not themselves believed.  Jesus himself claimed divinity several times; there are instances in which the Gospel writers record the people tried to stone him or injure him for making such a claim. If he isn't who he says he is, the only options that remain are that he is either insane or a blasphemous liar whom non Christians today respect as a great moral teacher.

Passage: John 5: 1-15

The story of Jesus healing the invalid at a pool is one well known to many Christians.  Because it was a story I thought I knew well, I would usually skim over it with the understanding it was yet another one of Jesus' miracles that showed his divinity and compassionate nature.
I was reading through my quiet time journal, which I've neglected for some time now...and I read some analysis I attempted back in January about this passage that caught my attention as interesting and often overlooked.  Some of it's speculation...so I could be off...

To give a concise summary of the passage, Jesus heals an invalid saying "Get up!  Pick up your mat and walk."  The Pharisees see this man and declare that he is violating the Sabbath by carrying his mat.  The invalid tells them he was healed by the man who told him to carry his mat and walk.  The angry Pharisees respond by asking who told him to do so.
Later, Jesus finds the former invalid at the temple and says to him, "See, you are well again.  Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you."

1.  The invalid gives a testimony of his miraculous healing to the Pharisees.  The Pharisees in response don't once address the healing, but instead immediately demand to know which man it was who allowed mat carrying on the Sabbath.  This is reflective of what they are truly concerned about: not God, but their status, along with tedious laws that had ceased to reflect a focus on following God.  It looks like the law is used more as an excuse here, as the concern seems to be that there is someone exercising greater power and authority than they, which they find to be unacceptable.

2.  Jesus finds the man at the temple and says "See, you are well again.  Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you."
I always wondered why Jesus said this to the man, considering that God does not smite us according to the sins that we accumulate.  Dare we think that this was Jesus being humorous?
"Stop sinning" perhaps as a reference to the Pharisees who stated to the man that he was sinning because he was carrying his mat?  And also perhaps as a reference to the notion that some Jews had at the time, which was that those born with physical deformities or ailments were afflicted because they/forefathers were wretched sinners (viewed not as a result of original sin, but rather as a case by case punishment).
Jesus healed the man and bid him pick up his mat and walk.  Which means the mat-carrying was no sin, or else it would not have been commanded by the son of God.  Maybe when Jesus said stop sinning, he said so with the knowledge of the Pharisees response and meant the supposed sin of the man carrying his mat, or the supposed sin that made him an invalid, which were not really sins at all.  Maybe it was more of an inside joke shared with this man he had healed.   

Verse 14 says "Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, 'See, you are well again...," suggesting that Jesus sought to find the man after the healing.  By seeking out the man and reminding him that he had been miraculously healed, Jesus reminded the man of God's grace.  It was not just a simple "I've healed you, goodbye," but rather "I've healed you and here I am again, a reminder that you have been transformed and that I will not forsake you."