Page 1 of 1

another last prophet, strangely familiar

Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:44 pm
by manfred
David Koresh and Mohammed have a lot in common. Here are just a few things that stick out...

David Koresh was brought up without a father. At the age of 4 he was placed into the care with his grandmother by his mother, who did not want the child.

At the age of 22 he had made a 15 year old girl pregnant. He suddenly claimed to have discovered religion, and joined an Adventist congregation, but was expelled shortly afterwards because he interfered with the pastor’s daughter, claiming he had a divine right to have sex with her.

In 1983, he claimed to be a prophet. He attempted to take over the leadership of various religious groups, but was not accepted by any.
Eventually he collected about 25 followers and took them to a remote place near Waco, Texas. It was not long before various skirmishes broke out and at one point he was arrested and tried for shooting at a police officer. Due to technical errors he was released after a mistrial.

He eventually managed to take control over a small religious community in Waco, by sleeping with their leader, a 70 year old woman, and by breaking agreements and attacking other leaders who had previously tried to look after him. He even went as far as making false police reports. Once taken over the group, he ruthlessly removed anyone who did not fully support him in every way.

When he was leader of the Mount Carmel complex, a substantial number of allegations of sexual abuse became known, with women as well as children, as well as several cases that would qualify as incest. In all of these cases, Koresh claimed he had special authority given to him by God to behave in such a way, and normal rules of sexual ethics do not apply to him. Regular "revelations" made sure that nobody dared to question his ways.

During the siege of Waco, he successfully got his followers to offer their lives in resistance the authorities. He had complete control over his followers.

He was yet another LAST prophet. And to this day there are some people who are holding on, come what may, to the delusion of David Koresh’s prophethood.

Does this not at all sound familiar? When did things like that happen before? As they say, those who don’t learn the lessons of history, are punished by having to repeat them. And still many cannot see what Mohammed was.

Re: another last prophet, strangely familiar

Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:42 am
by Eagle
So what was his end, that of his rejecters, and followers. What were his prophecies and in the name of which God did he speak?

This should refresh your memory ... 63#p193235" onclick=";return false;
Look at your own Bible's definition of false prophets. For example your NT states he has to come in Jesus' name, claim to be christ and "perform great signs and wonders"Matt24:4-5,23-25. Muhammad came in Allah's name, never claimed to be christ and regarding miracles, its in fact one of the main argument unbelievers use to attack him saying he never performed any miracles, just like the Meccan pagans (Quran28:48) and in total ignorance of their own scriptures where John the Baptist was a true prophet but performed no supernatural miracles Jn10:41,Matt21:25-26. Besides, to base one's faith on the sight of "miracles" is very dangerous for one never really knows whether the "miracle" wasn fact an illusion or other clever trick. The OT also says in Deut13:1-6 that God may allow a false prophet to perform miracles to see if the people will remain steadfast to their covenant or will be misled by so-called miraculous occurrences. In Ex7:11 Pharaoh commands his court magicians to imitate with their magic Moses' miracles showing that miracles do not necessarily have to be attributed to God. In short one cannot rely upon miracles as proof for a person's truthfulness regarding his claims to prophethood.

Other criterias of the false prophet in the NT is to prohibit marriage and certain foods 1Tim4:1-3. Did Muhammad forbid marriage? no in fact its Paul who advised not to marry 1Cor7:1 which results in all the sexual abuse from christian priests and missionaries. Did he ban some food? on the contrary he allowed new ones such as camels that the Israelites had forbidden to themselves through their invented mad-made laws. The false prophet "will bring the way of truth into disrepute"2Pet2:2 and Paul interpreted Jesus' teachings in ways which led to disputes between him and Jesus' early followers whom he sarcastically called "super apostles" and further considered himself superior to them while he never knew jesus 2Cor11:4-5,22-24. It is said that false prophets' "greed..will exploit you with stories they have made up"2Pet2:3 and paul who had several contradicting versions of his alleged encounter with a "light" admitted using deception in his modus operandi "I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it...crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery"2Cor12:11,16, he openly encouraged lying when preaching Jesus, becoming like a Jew to win the Jew, and becoming like a gentile (one not under the law) to win the gentile Phil1:15-18,1Cor9:19-21, because "The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached" in order to "win as many as possible". This is in sharp contrast to what the Quran says about the inadmissibility of using deceitful and disgraceful means for the propagation of Truth 16:92-95,125"Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner".
This strategy helped him earn money from the Gentiles for the expansion of his church in Jerusalem and beyond to reachout to the gentiles (which further marginalized the original followers of "the way") 2Cor8 and this fits another description of a false prophet in Micah3:11 whose motivation is money. It is from Paul's teachings and method of approaching the Jews rhat the Evangelical Zionists derive their missionary tactics. It consists in showing show the Jews a strong support that they might be "provoked into jealousy" so that they might be convinced that God's help has come from the followers of the one they rejected (Jesus) because Rom11"if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!".
Paul has a very peculiar feature, and that is one who consistently is found swearing that whatever he has is from God, contrary to what is preached in the New Testament, where Jesus is reported to have stated that such a thing was a quality of the Pharisees. Further, the very 'gospel' he was alleged to preach contradicted not just what was being taught in Galilee, but what was being taught in the Temple of Jerusalem itself. Paul was attacked in that Temple for what he was claiming. By the end of his life, he had to seek refuge with the pagan Roman Authority, because people, which were obviously his enemies within the other factions, wanted to kill him.

And finally Muhammad and all his followers fit the description of spirits of truth by acknowledging Jesus as the messiah and is from God according to 1Jn4. This verse fits trinitarians as antichrists because the deyfication of Jesus undermines his status of messiah, a human being annointed by God.

But the biggest problem for you is that according to the Tanakh it is Jesus himself who qualifies as a false prophet. It states firstly that the performance of miracles and wonders are not a valid criteria for the identification of a true prophet Deut13 and then that should his prophecies not come true then it is a charlatan who should be put to death Deut18:22. Jesus' prophecy of end of times made in the NT such as in Mk13:3-30 was a failure, i leave you to your own conclusions.

The simplest criterion of prophethood is that nations being punished for fighting and opposing their Messengers was a well-known Semitic tradition. Muhammad rises up and says to his tribe that they will meet a similar fate, they oppose the message and prevent the people from it and get punished by the sword. End of the matter. Show me one more person after him who has done such a feat:

1) comes from a common background yet claims to be a Messenger, in fact the Final Messenger of God
2) warns his people of Divine chastisement
3) the chastisement comes home to roost and the partisans of the Prophet are established in the land

This is the exact process that occurred with the Bani Israil in the time of Moses, with the drowning of the host of Pharaoh and the deliverance of the Israelites, with the uprooting of the Canaanites and the establishement of the way of God. Not to mention, the Quranic invitation to the Arabs to see or recall for themselves the fate of the deniers of Nuh, Lut, Shuayb, Hud... It is a Book of Warning that has already delivered its judgment in this world. As said in Deuteronomy regarding the awaited prophet "If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I myself will make him answer for it".

God Almighty says that Prophethood has ended with the Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet bore witness to the unity of God, and his deniers were punished in this life. For those who claimed to be Prophets after him - did they remain unvanquished as per the tradition of Allah, did they emerge as triumphant leaders or does their life and death fail to bear witness to their claims?

For example Musaylima emerged shortly after the Prophet's death and was killed under the orders of Abu Bakr. Another one was Bahaullah - though later his followers branched off into the Bahai faith which is based on the nice concept of unity of religions- he died a prisoner of the Ottoman Empire. There is also Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from Qadian, Punjab - his death is widely cited to be from either one of these diseases - cholera, diarrhoea, plague, or dysentery. Besides numerous prophecies regarding the timing and manner of his death were left unfulfilled - though Ahmadis now intrepret those in a metaphorical manner- but the manner of death is hardly inspiring for one claiming to be a Prophet.
There is then Rashad Khalifa who was a modern claimant based on his theory of the number 19's pattern in the Quran. Well, besides being accused of paedophilia, he was assassinated and his theories entirely discredited.
But above all, their theories did not prevail and either remained confined to a small number of followers or were simply lost and forgotten shortly after their death.
Another modern claimant was Joseph Smith in the US who started the Latter Day Saints movement and is the founder of Mormonism. He too was unfortunately assassinated.

Of all the new religions that have sprung up after Islam, one may perhaps say Sikhism is also there. But Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith, never claimed for himself Prophethood. Also, Sikhism emerged as a reform movement intertwined between Hinduism and Islam. The holy book Guru Granth contains quotes from Sufi saints as well.

On the face of it, finality of Prophethood seems to be a tenuous claim. After all, potentially anyone can stand up and say that he is a Prophet of God - but so far all the instances in which this has happened has failed to even come close to the scale and scope of the Prophet Muhammad's mission. Also, if we examine the entire career of these claimants - they have singularly and absolutely failed to match the life-chart of Prophet Muhammad and moreover their death poses even more questions than their life. What is even more interesting that none of them claimed to be the final Prophet, much less Jesus who predicted the coming of a powerful figure after him, the Paraclete, that shall bring justice to the world.

Re: another last prophet, strangely familiar

Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:20 pm
by manfred
So what was his end, that of his rejecters, and followers. What were his prophecies and in the name of which God did he speak?
Well, I am glad you ask...

David Koresh died from a bullet wound during the final stages of the "siege of Waco", most likely fired by a follower who straight afterwards committed suicide.

Mohammed died from poisoning most likely administered by the girl the raped, Aisha, as Shia sources convincingly spell out. He died drooling on her breasts in his last moments, not having worked out he was caressing his murderess. Sunni tell a differing, less convincing account blaming a Jewish woman for the poison.


Those who rejected David Koresh were expelled from the complex. One of them was also murdered.

Those who changed their mind about Mohammed were routinely murdered.


Koresh's prophecies were mainly "obey me and follow me". Some also justify his debauchery. There was also much on the terrible fate who reject him, and the terrible fate of the unbelievers on judgement day. In addition, he also re-defined marriage to suit his own urges.

In that respect, they are really indistinguishable from those of Mohammed. Both follow the same formula and both are merely tool of control. Both show a sick obsession with sexual gratification, and both seem to prefer very young girls.


As to Koresh's followers, they mainly dissipated, but there are a few left still claiming that he was a prophet.

Mohammed's followers also soon dissipated after his death, but here we do have a difference: they were forcefully, with violence and threats of violence, corralled together by the " rightly guided" Califs. They are the fathers of the myth of Mohammed and the real founders of Islam. Without them it would have long since died out. They found Islam useful for the same reason as Mohammed: it was effective in controlling people.


The the name of God did Koresh speak? Well, he CLAIMED a Christian connection, but this was superficial and false. He was not recognised outside his community. He was speaking for himself.

In that respect Mohammed did the same: he also tried to write himself into the Jewish/Christian tradition, but this was a very obvious fake. In fact it can be argued that he abandoned the pretence when he adopted the pagan rites of the Kaaba for Islam.

Re: another last prophet, strangely familiar

Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:39 pm
by Eagle
Puting aside the tired act of your kind, like the supposed murder of anyone leaving islam solely for his choice of creed, the now completely discredited and dismissed allegations of the young Aisha or the allegations of a few prejudiced and obviously sectarianly motivated shia on the manner in which the prophet died, or the idiotic notion of death by poison when that clearly wasnt the thing that killed God's last prophet, you forget that contrary to your wishful thinking all of Arabia entered waves upon waves, as prophecised over 20 years earlier into Islam's fold by the time Muhammad died and that the number didnt stop increasing ever after, also you forget that the punishement of those that rejected him, ie his nation, came to roost exactly as prophecied and as per the know semitic tradition of prophethood, regardless of anybody's whims. The previous post answers any claim or calumny to discredit Muhammad's prophthood that could not but be recognized even by the Jewish elite of the time and later, as already referenced in an earlier discussion

Re: another last prophet, strangely familiar

Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:04 pm
by manfred
eagle, your quote from the other thread does not compare David Koresh and Mohammed, so it offers nothing to this topic. We are not talking about Paul, for example, we are talking about a particular man, David Koresh, and in what way he was similar to Mohammed.

Your long copy and paste has also been answered by frankie, I believe...

You asked in the same thread:
Show me one more person after him who has done such a feat:[ meaning the same as Mohammed]

1) comes from a common background yet claims to be a Messenger, in fact the Final Messenger of God meaning none after him would ever be able to accomplish such feat
2) warns his people of Divine chastisement
3) the chastisement comes home to roost and the partisans of the Prophet are established in the land
Well, look at the David Koresh story. It matches all three. His background was very similar to Mohammed's. If Mohammed really claimed there would be nobody like him later, David Koresh (and a lot of others) proved him wrong. I am amazing Mohammed would make such a stupid boast.
Koresh warned of a chastisement too. Uncannily there was a chastisement in the shape of the Waco siege.

Why are his descendants not running the US? Because they did not have the equivalent of the Califate. The Branch Davidians simply had not the military strength to overrun the US, or even a small part of it. Mohammed's successors, on the other hand, had enough military power to overrun a divided Arabian peninsula, and much beyond. Does it not bother you that you follow a religion that was at one point forcibly imposed on your ancestors?

Do Mohammed's and his successors military achievements prove prophethood? What a crazy idea...

If so, how about chairman Mao? Was he a prophet because he annexed Tibet? How about the conquistadors who subdued Central and South America?

Jesus had no military successes at all. In fact he advised against fighting. So he was not a prophet then?

I assume then David Karesh qualifies as a prophet according to you, given he meets your requirements, so he an even "laster" prophet than the last one?

Re: another last prophet, strangely familiar

Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:41 pm
by Eagle
The quote, not in the least addressed by your forum friend indirectly provides you with the ccomparison you're demanding as it defines who is and who is not a prophet according to the criteria laid down by an unbiased 3rd party (in relation to Muhammad) and that source happens to be your own scriptures. Making up your own criteria to distinguish a false prophet from a true one is irrelevant from that perspective. And if you pay closer attention to what was said, nobody claimed that a true prophet must necessarly come with military success. What you're being told and what history and scriptures clearly bare testimony to is that a rejecting nation gets uprooted and whether the method used is the sword, a natural calamity or a host nation, it is always God acting behind and imposing his way.

So Koresh claimed finality of prophethood. How did his prophecies realize and how did his nation that rejected him, America, get uprooted and his followers established in the land? The early Muslims overturned a much more powerful foe, no less equivalent than the lightly armed Davidians vs the US governement, as was prophecied many years earlier in a time where none would have considered the possibility of such outcome materializing. This is the same process that happenned with the early Israelites whom Moses urged to fight in God's way their much more powerful enemy.

And nothing was forcibly imposed other than God's will concerning whose authority should the sacred land be given custody to. Conversions happenned by the will of the people "waves upon waves" as stated 20 years earlier when the Muslim community didnt count more than a few dozen.

Re: another last prophet, strangely familiar

Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:13 pm
by manfred
So, if your criteria for a prophet is that he must have had the same utterly disastrous effect as old Mo, must have been "victorious in terror" and have destroyed nations, enslaved millions, well tell me which other Islamic prophets match these dark requirements of yours.

Mohammed's declared aim was conquest, not only of Arabia, but also of Persia and Rome/Byzantium.
His successors managed most of that, by using a well defined strategy, one still used by Muslims to this day. Deception when weak and violent slaughter when strong.

So to you a "prophet" is a destroyer of civilisations...interesting notion. Apart from Mohammed, the one made victorious in terror, do the other people coined as prophets by Islam all match this idea?

As it happened, Koresh's ambitions were much less than Mohammed's. He merely wanted a little kingdom in the US, the Waco compound. There he wanted to rule without challenge, interference from outside, as an absolute master.

He failed on that in the end. But he still has followers. Isn't that odd?

Mohammed also did not achieve all of his declared aims, and much of the conquests happened long after his death. So why did Islam succeed eventually whereas Koresh did not? Simple. Islam was set up as an ideology for a tightly controlled fighting army. When Mohammed died, he was the most powerful man in Arabia. His heirs carried on where he left off, and brought slaughter wherever they went. They succeeded in much of what Mohammed wanted to steal, because they had few effective opponents.

We already know that Mohammed was a false prophet, that much really is quite clear. What is interesting is how similar he was to another manifestly false prophet. Is that not telling you something?

To me is is revolting to read that God should somehow uproot nations who refuse to accept Islam. God has nothing to do with that and it is libellous to suggest so. Muslims did that, all by themselves. And then they blame God for their own behaviour.

Re: another last prophet, strangely familiar

Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:27 pm
by Eagle
Lets try it once more. What you or me think of what a prophet should be is irrelevant, what matters is what the undeniable facts of history, as attested by your scriptures say concerning the claimant.

A person rises up from a common background, claims to speak in the name of the God of Abraham, makes prophecies that in certain cases (Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Noah etc) include the destruction of those that do not heed his warnings, and all prophecies materialize then he is a true prophet, regardless of anybody's whims.

Fact is, you and your people cannot refute these points. All you have are vague and weak attempts at discrediting the personality of the prophet like the supposed letters of conquests while they werent more than invitations to Islam. And sure terror is what defeated the superior enemy, not the Muslims themselves, instilled by God as He did with prophets before who were commanded to uproot a more powerful foe. This other fact, God's terrorizing the enemy is written all over your OT.

Re: another last prophet, strangely familiar

Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:55 pm
by manfred
In the OT, a prophet must be an Israelite, and a prophet certainly does not start a new religion or contradicts previous religious teachings. To call a man like Mohammed is prophet is as ridiculous as to call David Koresh a prophet.

Both never knew their father
Both were raised by adoptive parents
Both married old widows with religious and political influence
Both started their own religion
Both declared themself to be a prophet, in fact both said they were the LAST prophet
Both threatened non-believers with a "terrible doom"
Both had sexual relations with very young girls
Both had one set of rules for their followers and different one for themselves
Both had a pathological fear of criticism, were highly intolerant to being questioned and bore grudges
Both dealt harshly with those who want to leave their religion
Both made it very easy to join the new religion
Both had not real message other than "obey me" and situational revelations to justify really bad behaviour.
Both have killed for their religion
Both have sent their followers to die for them
Both had a band of gullible militant followers
Both were killed by one of their followers in the end

In fact when we look at some other discredited cult leaders of more recent times, it is striking just how similar they were to Mohammed. However, the number of obvious parallels between Mohammed and David Koresh in particular should make you think. There are too many to be a co-incident.

Re: another last prophet, strangely familiar

Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:03 am
by Eagle
Prophethood was never the perogative of the Israelites as you were properly taught there viewtopic.php?f=21&t=14684&start=40" onclick=";return false;, and again nothing to do with your opinion or mine, the undeniable facts of history and your own scriptures are there to prove it. You bringing a list of baseless calumnies presented as facts doesnt address the issue and as i said:
Fact is, you and your people cannot refute these points. All you have are vague and weak attempts at discrediting the personality of the prophet

Re: another last prophet, strangely familiar

Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:18 pm
by manfred
All the stuff from the other thread has been answered, in detail, and does not belong here. This is about the similarity between two people, Mohammed, and David Koresh, and the implications of that.

Re: another last prophet, strangely familiar

Posted: Wed May 15, 2013 7:55 pm
by Eagle
Sure you tried some answers, some you abandonned and disregarded, others you obstinately clinged to until that reply that still remains unanswered viewtopic.php?f=21&t=14684&start=60#p194835" onclick=";return false;.

And if your object isnt to disprove Muhammad's prophethood through that list, something you cannot do anyway considering the criteria of your own Tanakh, but simply to draw an irrelevant parallel between him and random personalities in a poor and childish attempt at discrediting his noble personality then keep in mind that your similarities, they could be as easily attributed to Jesus as you want them to be a depiction of Muhammad. A longer list could also be done between Moses and Hitler, or John the baptist and LaVey the founder of the church of satan sect, or Chandra of the osho sect. So what is your point really, disbeliever?