In the story, The Parable of the Good Samaritan, the expert in Law tested Jesus on justifying loving God with all your soul, heart and thou neighbor and you will inherit eternal life. Jesus implied, he could than have eternal life. The expert in law stands up to try to tempt Jesus to discredit him in anyway he knew would win the crowd in his favor. We can assume, not only did he not believe that he was probably the son of god, but also if he was capable of performing the miracles that he has heard about; Also the expert in law motivation and the nature of his interaction with Jesus was to doubt what Jesus had been trying to convey, because he was, perhaps having spiritual crisis and doubts of his own expertise. In addition to, after Jesus gave the vivid depiction about the Good Samaritan story, the multitudes observe the interaction by sighing toward Jesus when he replied to the expert in law. We can also assume crowd believed he was the son of God who performed such miracles, and ultimately was the righteous one to follow in the end.

This one of my intro following the thesis and topic sentence is this in a correct order or is this a suffice thesis to present to an instructor. Please help!

Hi, nady1pmc!

It would be helpful to know what specific instructions you were given by your teacher as to the construction of the thesis in order to help you the best here.

Thanks!

Thanks for responding. I've revise and revise so second opinions can be very useful. The specific instruction of my English 101 Instructor was to have a brief intro followed by the thesis with three supporting sentences that will guide my three paragraph topic sentences. He is looking for coherence, importance, assumption, implication, and so forth. If you can rearranage anything please, to whatever you think is apporiate to present, to the best of your ablity, to my instructor. It is due Monday.

Quote:

---

This one of my intro following the thesis and topic sentence is this in a correct order or is this a suffice thesis to present to an instructor.

---

Please also post your thesis and topic sentence. Or was that it?

Have you read your stuff slowly and out loud? Some of it doesn't make sense with sentence structure and grammar.

Yeah I have and I sense than revised it. The purpose of posting this brief intro following the thesis that have supporting topic sentences present was to get a second opinion on gammer and vocabulary, mam. So if you can suggest possible rearrange some of the sentences or even correct to the best of your knowlegde, it would be helpful right about now. The essay is due Monday. Yeah I'am craming, it happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nady1pmc

Yeah I have and I sense than revised it. The purpose of posting this brief intro following the thesis that have supporting topic sentences present was to get a second opinion on gammer and vocabulary, mam. So if you can suggest possible rearrange some of the sentences or even correct to the best of your knowlegde, it would be helpful right about now. The essay is due Monday. Yeah I'am craming, it happens.

---

I could make it perfect, but then the rest of the essay would suffer by comparison. This section would obviously not be your writing. I don't want to do your homework for you. Now what?

(Is English your second language? If so, what is your first, and what country are you in?)

If you couldn't answer the question I post about the paragraph please do not respond thank you

Even the first sentence makes no sense.

You wrote:

In the story, The Parable of the Good Samaritan, the expert in Law tested Jesus on justifying loving God with all your soul, heart and thou neighbor and you will inherit eternal life.

Better:

In the story "The Parable of the Good Samaritan," a lawyer tested Jesus by asking Him which is the greatest commandment in the Law.

You are right I'd change that sentence already felt it was to wordy. Your example sum up even the one I'd change. So you were helpful just with that little example cool.
In the story "The Parable of the Good Samaritan," a lawyer tested Jesus by asking Him which is the greatest commandment in the Law. The expert in law stands up to try to tempt Jesus to discredit him in anyway he knew would win the crowd in his favor. We can assume the expert in law motivation and the nature of his interaction with Jesus was to doubt what Jesus had been trying to convey, because he was, perhaps having spiritual crisis and doubts of his own expertise. Also, after Jesus gave the vivid depiction about the Good Samaritan story, the multitudes observe the interaction by sighing toward Jesus when he replied to the expert in law. We can also assume the crowd believed he was the son of God who performed such miracles, and ultimately was the righteous one to follow in the end.
Jesus told the expert in the law about the story of the Good Samaritan to give him a certain situation involving members of the elite, or members with different religious belief and how their religious title plays a role in their decision to stop and help the traveler. According to Luke, Jesus said,
“A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he crossed to the other side of the rode and passed him by. So too, a Levite, when he came to the where the man was and saw him, crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came to where the man was, and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went up to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own animal, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have” (Luke 10:25).
This can mean having compassion for thou neighbor can fulfill one of Gods principles to being on a righteous path. For example, one way you can show compassion, give a hand when there is someone in need, even if you don’t profit or gain any thing from your good act.
Furthermore, I believe that the expert had this spiritual crisis because he was stubborn and resistant to what Jesus had been teaching and had doubts of his own expertise. One reason, the expert in law was having a crisis of spirituality he may not have been a spiritual being, to me, he was a disbeliever and struggled with his beliefs in who Jesus meant about the Good Samaritan. The expert has his doubt his own expertise, when he answers to Jesus, “You mean the one who had mercy on him”. This is why Jesus replied to the expert instructing him to, “Go and do likewise and you will live” (1). This is also why the expert in the law challenged Jesus because he was having difficulties with his own belief system.
When the crowd accepted Jesus as the son of god, they interacted with him. In my opinion, sometimes Jesus would perform miracles to get converts to believe that he was a conduit, or mediator for the Lord. Some of the miracles he perform were, restoring sight to the blind, raising Lazarus from the dead, and turning water into wine. When Jesus performed these miracles, the non-believers became believers and accepted that Jesus was who he said he was (the son of god). Now, the role Jesus plays in the relationship between the believer’s means that he has converted non-believers to believers.
The possibly moral of the parable is Jesus was trying to get the multitudes to, believe to accept the principles or instruction he gave them about loving god with thou heart, soul and love your neighbor as yourself, you than will inherit eternal life. Secondly, to be like the Samaritan, I suppose, to observe or obey the Ten Commandments; which would help them be more altruistic; Thus providing them with a moral compass to be more-God-like.