MiddleMan

I still don't quite understand...

Amaleq13

I don't see how that supports his claim that JP Holding was his original name.

Graceman

I don´t know which claim you are referring to? It couldn´t be this claim, which you qouted in your response:
"Well, pathetic or not, if my life had been threatened I might also think through how I would like to use my real name."

:huh: ?

All the best,
Graceman

quoting

The muslims that commited that act werent the ones that founded the religion though. They follow Islam and believe it. But they werent the ones that created the religion. Paul and the followers were founders of the reilgion and they died for the religion they founded. Muhammed didnt do that, Buddha didnt do that, Confucius aint do that, Nanak aint do that, so to say that followers of Islam being maryts is the same as Paul and Jesus' followers dying for their beliefs isirrelevant.

Toto

The link for the family tree of Chaim Eisig Turkel of Chorostkow shows

So Susan Turkel married David Holding and had a child named Robert Turkel, who married Susan Mayo. It sounds like there might have been a divorce, and the son's name was changed.

Sauron

I was pretty specific about which claim I meant: the claim that the reason he writes under a pen name is to elude potential attackers (i.e., prison inmates) who hold grudges against him from his work experience as a prison librarian.

If you believe that his life was ever threatened.

Amaleq13

Even accepting that as an accurate interpretation, I don't see how it confirms or even suggests that his original name was JP Holding and that it was subsequently changed to Robert Turkel.

S.C.Carlson

I don't know about the "JP" part, but that evidence suggests that his bio-dad's surname was "Holding."

Stephen

Sauron

I don't think we've established whether this genealogy describes the same person as Turkel or not. The first name of the child isn't listed.

And, as Amaleq13 points out, the first names also changed. "James Patrick" part is not the same as "Robert". Upon taking a nom de plume, Turkel has changed both his first, and his last names. This genealogy doesn't offer a sufficient explanation for both of those.

I also find it a little strange that we're just *now* hearing this newfound excuse: "Well, it actually WAS my name at birth, but the name was changed later. I'm just going back and using my original name." Had that actually been true, why wouldn't Turkel have just said so years ago?

If the genealogy is correct, however, it would also mean that Turkel is a Jewish convert to christianity. I find that highly unlikely. If that were true, I think we would have heard him say something long ago. I don't think he has the self-control to contain his glee (i.e., keep silent all this time) about being one of the "144,000 chosen Jews to accept the Meshiach", or a member of the "Branch that was grafted back into the Vine."

Steven Carr

If Holding was here, he would soon tell us why these genealogies are perfectly consistent, just like the genealogies of Jesus are perfectly consistent.