ModernGnosis recently put up a blog post about prejudice within religious studies. In concerns how all of us have certain biases, and how easily they can color our understanding of new sources, such as giving more weight to evidence that supports already accepted beliefs and less weight to contrary evidence.
But the most interesting point, IMHO, was the statement that "Aleister Crowley is no more Thelema than Moses is Judaism. The prophet is not the core of the religion. They are merely the mouthpiece for God."
Merely the mouthpieces of God? Most people consider mouthpieces of God to be pretty important. And this is coming from a Thelemic website, run by someone who does, in fact, accept Crowley as a prophet. The perspective here is that while the prophet revealed large amounts of information, it is still up to each individual believer to interpret that information. Crowley was the start, but he certainly isn't the end all and be all of Thelema.
And so it is for Moses. Jews traditionally view the Torah as written by Moses. The Torah is the moment important of the Hebrew scriptures, but it certainly isn't the entirety of scripture. In addition, there are many more documents in Judaism that are held is highly important (such as the Talmud) but aren't considered scripture at all.
Religions may start with a prophet, or at least a founder, but they continue to develop long after that person is dead. Judging a religion primarily on it's prophet or founder ignores the vast complexity of religion.