Before I begin, let me just state for the record that I am in no way an advocate of Baptism of Desire. I only mention this because it seems most people who are opposed to the Dimonds believe in this particular doctrine, and I DO NOT want to be mistaken as one of them. That being said, this is the last you will hear of that subject in this post. I also realize how lengthy this letter is, but there is a lot of information to cover, and I want to be thorough. That being said, let me begin.

The Dimonds believe they are the Two Witnesses from chapter 11 of the Apocalypse. There’s no question about it. After looking at the evidence I'll be presenting, I’m sure you’ll agree. On the same note, it is not my primary intention to prove that the Dimonds believe this – but rather to prove its absolute impossibility. This is the primary goal of this post. As such, it is mainly written for the benefit of the Dimonds’ loyal fans, who unfortunately also believe Michael and Peter are the Two Witnesses. Toward this end, I’ll be exposing many of the Brothers’ more obvious errors in interpretation of Apocalyptic prophecy. Perhaps in light of these errors, their fans will realize the sheer impossibility of the Dimonds being God’s Anointed Prophets. By way of a quick example, the Brothers believe that the “Babylon” spoken of in the Book of the Apocalypse is the city of Rome – and therefore the “Fall of Babylon” refers to the “Fall of Rome from the Catholic Faith”. This has been their position for many years, as any of their followers know. At the same time, Scripture states very clearly that the “Fall of Babylon” is an occasion for REJOICING in Heaven (Apoc. 18:20, 19:1-4). And here we see the problem. If one wants to uphold the Dimonds’ position, one has to maintain that all of Heaven rejoices at the Fall of Rome from the Catholic Faith – a position so theologically preposterous that words simply fail. Nor is this the only blunder coming from the Dimonds’ camp, but is merely the tip of the iceberg. And so, by exposing the more obvious errors in the Dimonds’ interpretations of Apocalyptic prophecy, I hope to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that they cannot possibly be the two prophets of God. Nevertheless, I will bring forward plenty of evidence that they believe it’s true.

Another reason why I wanted to write this post is because I believe I have a moral obligation to do so. This obligation stems, in part, from the fact that I have inside information from a former member regarding life at the monastery. This information should prove helpful in determining whether or not Michael and Peter are the holy monks they portray themselves as (it might also be good for a few laughs). And so, I believe that this inside information, along with several key arguments which no one else seems to have brought up yet, necessitates an obligation on my part to expose them.

So again, in writing this post, I would like to correct much of the Scriptural desecration committed by Michael and Peter, as well as expose them for who they really are – just a couple of guys named Fred and Bob (respectively) with a website, a lot of money, and no one to answer to. But more on these subjects later. For now, I’d like to delve into the reasons why I maintain the Dimonds believe they are the Two Witnesses.

My suspicions were first kindled while reading a magazine publication put out by the monastery some 15 years ago. In one article, I noticed that the Brothers were not only manipulating a prophecy specific to the Witnesses, but that they were twisting it in such a way as to quietly point to themselves – that is, so the prophecy would fit THEIR OWN mission. This is when I first suspected they thought they were the Two Witnesses. If I learned anything as a psychology major in college, it was that there is ALWAYS a reason behind one's actions – always. It may be hidden deep within the subconscious mind, but there’s always a reason. In this particular case, however, the Dimonds’ actions were clearly born of conscious thought. They read the prophecy, saw that it didn’t fit their mission, and so they twisted it to make it fit. The prophecy in question involves the identity of the Two Witnesses. 

Now, as everyone knows, it has been held from time immemorial that the Two Witnesses were Enoch and Elijah. For nearly 18 centuries, this was the universally accepted position of Saints and theologians alike. In fact, this opinion was so highly regarded that as late as the 17th century it was considered, by some, as borderline heresy to stray from it. Even today, it still prevails as the majority opinion among all those who consider themselves “Christians”. There are several reasons why this opinion exists. First of all, it’s believed that Enoch and Elijah have never died; and since everyone born from Adam (excepting Christ and His Mother) is under the curse of death, it’s only natural to assume Enoch and Elijah MUST die someday. Ergo, it’s maintained that they will return as the Witnesses, fulfill their mission, and then perish as everyone else. And so, the belief that they haven’t died yet is one of the reasons this position has prevailed as the majority opinion for so long. 

Then there’s the statement from the Book of Ecclesiastes which says that Enoch was translated to Paradise “to await the conversion of the nations.” (Eccl. 44:16) This statement has been interpreted as referring to the time when Enoch will return as one of the Witnesses and fulfill his mission of evangelizing. The third reason these two ancient prophets are regarded as the Witnesses is based upon the prophecy of Elijah’s return prior to the coming of the Messiah. This was foretold in the Old Testament Book of Malachy, and has been common knowledge among the Jєωs ever since. Christ Himself even confirms this view, adding that when the prophet returns, he will “restore all things”. Even today, the Jєωs are so sure of Elijah’s return, that they traditionally set a place for him at their annual Passover meal. All this to say, everyone knows Elijah will come back. The prophecy is unquestionable. As to why God would refrain from mentioning him by name in the Book of the Apocalypse, who knows? I’m sure there’s a perfectly good reason for it though. Nevertheless, there’s no need to mention his name since the 3½ year drought called down upon the world by the Two Witnesses is identical to the 3½ year drought called down upon the world by Elijah. This identifying clue, along with the assurance of his return prior to the Second Coming of Christ, is how we know Elijah is one of the Witnesses.

As for Enoch, his case is not quite as solid. The reason being, St. Paul tells us in the 11th chapter of his letter to the Hebrews that Enoch is among the dead. This, however, would certainly not disqualify him from returning in a metaphorical sense. And, of course, the same holds true for Elijah. Even so, the point is NOT whether these two are the Witnesses. No. The point is that this was the universally held belief of every Catholic on earth for 18 centuries, and still survives as the majority opinion today. Therefore, even if one wants to argue in support of a metaphorical sense, there is still NO legitimate reason to stray from the majority opinion – particularly in light of the fact that “Elijah” is most certainly one of the Witnesses. Again, there is absolutely no reason to stray from the majority in this matter. That is, unless it conflicts with your agenda, as in the case of the Dimonds… 

Particularly troublesome to Michael and Peter is the implication of naming Elijah as one of the Witnesses, as this would inevitably limit the Witnesses’ mission to a literal 3½ years. Needless to say, this time span is incompatible with the mission of the Dimonds, who have been preaching for some 20 years now. So what do they do? Do they humble themselves, throw in the towel, and accept the fact that they cannot possibly be the Two Witnesses? No. Instead, they decide to manipulate the prophecy instead. And they do so by adopting the position that the Witnesses are not Enoch and Elijah after all – but Sts. Peter and Paul. Now, at first glance, this alteration seems harmless enough. Strictly speaking, it’s not heretical to stray from the majority opinion in a matter of prophetic interpretation. It’s dangerously reckless in this particular case, but not heretical. Even so, the name change is not the problem. The problem was the EXPLANATION that accompanied it. That’s what caught my attention. You see, the Dimonds made sure to explain to everyone that with this change from Enoch and Elijah to Sts. Peter and Paul, we were now FREE TO ACCEPT A 30-YEAR DURATION for the Witnesses’ mission. Once again, the Scriptural 3½ year (1260 days) mission of the Witnesses was incompatible with the Dimonds’ own mission of 20 years, so they adopted the opinion that the Witnesses were Sts. Peter and Paul. This allowed them a far more comfortable timetable of 30 years. Problem solved. This was Red Flag number one. 

Incidentally, the announcement of this new revelatory name change, and the explanation of its consequences, appeared in their old magazine aptly titled “A Voice in the Wilderness”. This was Red Flag number two. Frankly, it didn't take much guess work by this time. The silent implication of naming their own magazine “A Voice in the Wilderness” (a clear allusion to Elijah) is unmistakable – notwithstanding the fact that within that very magazine, they just tossed the original “Voice” out the window. And so, when considering the suspicious choice of a title for their magazine; and the fact that the Dimonds are twisting a prophecy specific to the Witnesses in order to make it fit THEIR OWN mission; and the coincidental fact that there are two of them, it is perfectly reasonable to assume they believe they’re the Two Witnesses. As the old saying goes, "This isn’t rocket science." But the evidence doesn’t end here.

The second mysterious twist performed by the Dimonds regarding the Witnesses also involved the duration of the Witnesses’ mission, albeit in a more direct way: Scripture plainly says this duration will be 1260 days. Unless I’m missing something, this is pretty clear. Then again, as with the 3½ years, if Scripture really means a literal 1260 days, then the Dimonds have a big problem. So how do they get around it? They do so by conveniently adopting the position of Modernist biblical “scholars” who tell us the 1260 days doesn’t actually mean 1260 days, but refers symbolically to “any period of persecution”. Now, take careful notice of the fact that in any other circuмstance, the Dimonds would have immediately shucked these Modernist idiots' interpretation into the garbage where it belongs. They know perfectly well that these are the same “scholars” who brush off the Creation account as only metaphorical; who reject the Flood narrative as myth; who argue that Evolution and Scripture are compatible; who say the prophecy of the “Antichrist” is to be understood only in a spiritual sense; and, of course, who dismiss a literal 1260 days as “any period of persecution”. Again, in any other circuмstance, The Dimonds wouldn’t have given these so-called scholars’ interpretation a second glance. In this case however, a literal 1260 days is irreconcilable with their own mission, so Peter Dimond happily adopts the Modernists’ interpretation that it simply refers to “any period of persecution”. And their problem is solved. 

Moving on… 
The third twist I noticed the Dimonds committing involved the prophecy of the location of the Witnesses’ death. Even though this alteration doesn’t concern them personally, it nevertheless seeks to validate their own personal interpretation of Apocalyptic prophecy. In other words, the Dimonds twist the prophecy of the Witnesses' death in such a way that it now coincides with their own agenda. The reason being, if understood as written, the Apocalyptic Fantasyland they’ve spent the last 20 years constructing would suddenly collapse. The prophecy in question is found in verse 8 of chapter 11:
“And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord also was crucified.”

Now everyone knows where our Lord was crucified. He was crucified in Jerusalem. And anyone familiar with the writings of the Old Testament prophets knows that Jerusalem is referred to in a spiritual sense as Sodom: “Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom, give ear to the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah...” (Is. 1:10). And again, in chapter 23 of Jeremiah we read, “And I have seen the likeness of adulterers, and the way of lying in the prophets of Jerusalem: and they strengthened the hands of the wicked, that no man should return from his evil doings: they are all become unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrha." Finally, in chapter 16 of Ezechiel, we find Judah referred to as “Sodom” no less than 5 times. 

Likewise, Jerusalem is referred to as "Egypt" because, as far as God is concerned, Israel never really left that godless country – at least not in a spiritual sense. Just like Lot’s wife, whose heart was so attached to the filthy town of Sodom that she couldn’t bear the thought of leaving it, Israel has forever kept the idols of Egypt in Her heart. This is made clear in a passage from chapter 23 of Ezekiel. Speaking of the end of the world, when Israel will finally be cleansed of all its Idolatry, God says “And I will put an end to thy wickedness in thee, and thy fornication brought out of the land of Egypt: neither shalt thou lift up thy eyes to them, nor remember Egypt anymore.” (Ez. 23:27) Again, Israel never really left Egypt – at least not in a spiritual sense. They’ve carried their false Egyptian gods with them since the day of their deliverance. Indeed, only months after the Exodus from Egypt, they are found worshiping a golden calf below Mount Sinai, hailing it as the “god” who saved them. 

And so, Jerusalem is spiritually referred to as Sodom and Egypt. And as everyone knows, it's precisely where our Lord was crucified. Not only is this interpretation solidly based upon both Scripture and history, but it’s also nice and simple. Not for the Dimonds however. If accepted as written, this prophecy would initiate a chain reaction that would ultimately destroy their entire Apocalyptic Fantasyland from beginning to end. The reason being, the Dimonds maintain that the “Great City” (a.k.a. Babylon) is actually Rome, NOT Jerusalem. Ergo, the prophecy MUST be altered. So how do they do it? Peter Dimond performs one of his more renowned twists. Truly, it’s one for the record books. Let’s read the exact prophecy in question again:
“And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord also was crucified.”

So how does Peter alter this prophecy? He does so by telling us that this verse doesn’t necessarily mean what it says. That is, it doesn't actually mean that our Lord was crucified in the “Great City”, which is called spiritually “Sodom and Egypt”. No. What it actually means, according to Peter, is that the Great City (Rome) is referred to as Sodom and Egypt FROM where our Lord was crucified. In other words, according to Peter Dimond, the verse should more correctly read: “And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, FROM Jerusalem – the place where our Lord was crucified.” You see the manipulation? Rome is referred to as Sodom and Egypt FROM Jerusalem. And Voila. Problem solved.

Though certainly not his best to date, this has to be one of Peter’s more ingenious manipulations of Holy Scripture. And he only had to add a single word: “from”. Never mind the fact that Rome has never once been referred to as either Sodom or Egypt from Jerusalem – the important thing is that their fans swallowed it. That's the important thing. And another potentially humiliating moment for the Dimonds was averted. Anyway, this was the third twist I noticed regarding the prophecies specific to the Witnesses.

Briefly, for those confused about the identity of "The Great City", I'll share something with you not too many people are aware of. Rome is assumed to be the Apocalyptic “Great City” because it's built on seven hills. And this is correct. Rome is built on seven hills. Nevertheless, there are a number of other cities that were built on seven hills. In fact, constructing cities upon seven hills was a common theme in the ancient world. In the 4th century, Constantine chose Byzantium as the new center of his empire specifically because it was built on seven hills. Ancient Babylon was also built on seven hills; as were Mecca and Moscow. The truth is, there are many cities that fall into this category. There are 3 in Africa. Asia boasts of 8. There are 19 in the United States. Europe has as many as 40. And so Rome is not the only one. 

Would it surprise you if I said Jerusalem was also built on seven hills? You can look it up for yourself. They are: Mount Scopus, Mount Olivet, the Mount of Corruption, Mount Ophel, Mount Zion (new and old), and the mountain upon which the Antonia Fortress was built. And so, Jerusalem is also built on seven hills. All this to say, if the seven-hilled theme is what convinces you that Rome MUST be the Great City, think again. The city where our Lord was crucified is Jerusalem. Let's not confuse the historical record, or the Scriptures. Nor is this the only evidence to support the position that Jerusalem is the “Great City”. In truth, there is far more evidence in support of this position than any other theorized locale – including Rome; but that's a topic for later. Right now I want to continue with the Dimonds.

Another indication they believed they were the Witnesses happened just recently. It involved their interpretation of the Fifth Vial mentioned in chapter 16 of the Apocalypse. In case you don’t already know, the Fifth Vial is one of the seven last plagues – those which contain the fullness of God’s wrath. To give you some idea of how serious these plagues will be, note that as they are unleashed upon mankind, the Temple in Heaven is engulfed in smoke – so much so that no one is able to enter until the vials are empty. If I didn't know any better, I'd say it looks as if God will not allow anyone to petition Him for mercy during this period. Who knows? At any rate, this is serious. Each plague is catastrophic in nature, and all involve the entire race of mankind. They culminate in the final great battle of Armageddon, the cataclysmic destruction of Babylon, and the end of the world as we know it. 

As the First Vial is poured out, every man, woman, and child who has accepted the Mark, or worships the image of the Beast, is covered with intensely painful sores. The second plague causes all the world’s oceans to turn into the blood of a dead man; thereby causing the death of every creature living in them (image that if you can). With the third, all the rivers and springs of water throughout the world turn into blood; which, again, will cause the death of every creature living in them. The fourth vial is poured out upon the sun, and mankind is literally scorched with fire and tormented with tremendous heat – blaspheming God for their misery and pains. Then comes the Fifth Vial; the one we’re concerned with here. This vial is poured out upon the Seat of the Beast, and his entire kingdom is then immersed in a mysterious darkness. This darkness is accompanied by torments so intense that man will literally gnaw on his tongue in pain. We aren’t told exactly what those torments will be, or what causes them, but we know they will be terrible. But notice here that this is not just a simple period of darkness. No. Something else is going on. The darkness actually causes an intense pain. There’s a mystery here, just as there was during the plague of Darkness in the days of the Exodus. 

Those familiar with the Old Testament remember that the “Darkness” which the Egyptians experienced was more than a simple blackout. The Book of Exodus says it could be felt. Apparently, there was a physical dimension to it. Moreover, as we read in the Book of Wisdom, it was accompanied by terrible visions, unexplained noises, and intense fear. The fear was so great, in fact, that for the entire three days of darkness, no one so much as moved from where they stood (Ex. 10:23). So then, far from a simple blackout, the three days of Egyptian Darkness amounted to a waking nightmare:
“And while they thought to lie hid in their obscure sins, they were scattered under a dark veil of forgetfulness, being horribly afraid and troubled with exceeding great astonishment. For neither did the den that held them, keep them from fear: for noises coming down troubled them, and sad visions appearing to them, affrighted them. And no power of fire could give them light, neither could the bright flames of the stars enlighten that horrible night.” (Book of Wisdom 17:3-5)

And so, when the Apocalypse speaks of intense pains brought on by this Fifth Vial of “Darkness”, we have every reason to suspect a mysterious, supernatural occurrence rather than a simple blackout. After all, these are the seven LAST plagues unleashed on the world, FULL of the wrath of Almighty God. In fact, looking at them more carefully, it would almost seem as if God were giving mankind a little foretaste of the pains, fears, and anguish of Hell itself. Think about it: Here we find the human race, languishing in an intense thirst brought on by the lack of drinkable water; enveloped in some mysterious and horribly painful supernatural Darkness; literally scorched with fire and tormented with great heat; surrounded with the putrid smell of a dead man’s blood and the nauseating stench of death from all sides. Think whatever you like. It sounds like a foretaste of Hell to me. But let’s not stray too far from the point. The Fifth Vial is our concern here – a period of darkness and torment so severe that mankind will literally gnaw on his tongue in pain. According to the Dimonds, this Apocalyptic event took place this past February (2017). And what was it? Brace yourself… 
                                                                       
                                                       A 2½ hour electrical failure in Brussels, Belgium. 

No, really. According to the Two Witnesses, Fred and Bob, the dreaded Fifth Vial containing the final, unmerciful wrath of God manifested itself as an ordinary blackout in Brussels, Belgium. It ultimately affected less than 15% of the city, lasted a whopping 2½ hours, and took place during the middle of the night when most of the city was sound asleep. I know… pretty scary. One can almost taste the horror – groping around in the dark for a flashlight, or maybe even a candle. And Heaven forbid someone stubbed their toe. Perhaps they were gnawing on their tongues because they couldn’t see the midnight snack in their mouth? I’m not kidding, folks. Peter even did a short video of this horrifying, catastrophic end-times event. 

No doubt one of the first questions that comes to mind is “How”? How on earth could the Dimonds (or any sane human for that matter) imagine that this normal, everyday rinky-dink event could possibly be the dreaded Fifth Vial of God’s wrath? We’ve all experienced blackouts. We know what happens. There’s nothing fearful about them at all, and certainly no reason to panic. In fact, we’ve probably experienced enough of them that when they do occur, we instinctively know the electricity will be restored as soon as possible. And it always is. And how much less of a hassle is it when the blackout occurs in the middle of the night, as did this one in Brussels? It just means we’ll have to reset the alarm clock in a few hours. There’s no reason to even get out of bed. Just roll over and go back to sleep. Again, we’ve all been there. There’s absolutely nothing to panic about. 

Sure, the media played it up as if were some Apocalyptic event, but reading the comments on twitter, it’s quite obvious no one was panicking at all. In fact, they were a bit aggravated that the media made such a big deal about it. Read some of the comments yourself. These were taken from: https://www.rt.com/news/376881-brussels-blackout-media-panic/
“Can the media abroad stop their (expletive) about panic in Brussels during power outage? There is no panic whatsoever here!!! Geesh!”
“Well I'm in Brussels, I see no total blackout, no police and sirens everywhere. Calm down...”
“The lights are most certainly on in this part of Brussels & no sirens - calm down twitter!” 
“Faint rare siren can be heard, nothing out of the ordinary.”

That’s right. Nothing out of the ordinary. And certainly nothing of an Apocalyptic nature. In fact, the whole ordeal proved to be about as “Apocalyptic” as an episode of Sesame Street. So why did the Dimonds treat it as some epic event? Stranger still is the embarrassing fact that they already interpreted the Fifth Vial as an earlier event. Oops. That’s right. They must have forgotten. It happened back in 2010. Perhaps some of their longtime fans remember the occasion. In April of that year, there was a volcanic eruption in Iceland which sent plumes of ash over the entire country of Europe, darkening its skies and downing all the airline flights. Without batting an eye, the Dimonds boldly claimed this was the fulfillment of the Fifth Vial. 

Though it clearly didn’t fulfill the prophecy any more than the Brussels fiasco did, who could doubt that AT LEAST the volcanic eruption was far more “Apocalyptic” in nature than some ordinary, everyday power outage? Nevertheless, for some mysterious reason, the Dimonds imagined that this little rinky-dink blackout, which barely claimed 15% of a city, was an even greater event than a volcanic eruption that darkened an entire country. Again, how is this possible? 

Well, I’ll tell you how. Peter quietly admitted it in his video: The reason is because IT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED THEIR GUEST APPEARANCE on a popular radio talk show. THAT’S the reason why they deemed it significant. It followed their radio show. Had it happened at any other time, they wouldn’t have given this perfectly normal event a second thought. But you see, they believe they’re the Two Witnesses. That’s the key. That’s the secret behind their astoundingly ludicrous interpretation of this otherwise ordinary event. Michael and Peter believe they are the Two Witnesses, and this blackout occurred the day following their broadcast (God was confirming their radio testimony, you see). If you listen carefully to Peter’s voice in the video, you can detect a slight pause around the 1:20 mark. He does this for effect; in order to make sure that EVERYONE understands that the blackout occurred immediately after their show – as if, with the unveiling of this revelation, the Dimonds are quietly giving their fanclub a little wink; a little reminder, if you will, that they really ARE the Two Witnesses. Who knows? Who cares? Whatever the case, there’s no question that the ONLY reason they interpreted this minuscule event as significant – even Apocalyptic – was because it immediately followed THEIR radio appearance. 

On a sidenote, Peter might try and defend his ridiculous interpretation by claiming that what really convinced him the blackout was an Apocalyptic event was the fact that numerous media outlets used the same phrase, “Plunged into Darkness” that some bibles use. So let’s nip this in the bud right now. There’s no great mystery behind the media’s widespread use of the same phrase. All the media outlets are controlled by a central body. They all read off the same script. Have a look at this short, comical video. It’s only 2 minutes long, but explains the point quite well:


And so, the media outlets are all centrally controlled. That’s why these ones all used the same identical phrase, “Plunged into Darkness”. They operate from the same script. Again, there’s no great mystery here. In the end, aside from proving they believe they're the Witnesses, Peter’s interpretation of this prophecy of the Fifth Vial is just another lame attempt by the Dimonds to reconcile the mundane events of today with the cataclysmic events of the Apocalypse. They do it over and over and over again. You see, because they believe they’re the Two Witnesses, they think that everything happening around us right now is the fulfillment of Apocalyptic prophecy. Hence, the ludicrous interpretations. It’s not so much that they believe these events are truly “Apocalyptic”, for no one’s that stupid. It’s more the fact that they are really, really desperate to confirm their fantasy, and are therefore willing to accept just about ANYTHING that even remotely resembles one of the prophecies. That’s all that’s going on. Their ridiculous interpretation of the Fifth Vial is just one in a long line of examples.

Their interpretation of Apoc.18:2 is even worse. In fact, it’s arguably their dumbest to date. This prophecy describes what becomes of Babylon following its destruction at the end of the world:
 “And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen; and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every unclean spirit, and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird...”

Unknown to the Dimonds, this same prophecy is repeated some 30 times throughout the writings of the ancient prophets, often in slightly more graphic detail. In fact, it’s one of the most oft-repeated prophecies in Scripture. No doubt it’s highly significant. In both the Old and New Testaments, the image of Babylon’s destruction is similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah – only worse: It is the image of a city completely incinerated by the unbridled vengeance of God; reduced to a heap of smoldering ash and abandoned to perpetual rotting and defilement; forevermore uninhabitable by man, but left to the demons, devils, satyrs, filth, and every unclean and despised beast. Below are some of the verses from the Apocalypse. Do they not provoke images of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? 

"And the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast...shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her with fire." (Apoc. 17:16)

“Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire." (Apoc. 18:8 )

"...when they shall see the smoke of her burning, standing afar off for fear of her torment.” (Apoc. 18:9-10) 

"...and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, and cried when they saw the smoke of her burning.” (Apoc. 18:17-18 )

"...and her smoke rose up forever and ever.” (Apoc. 19:3)

And so, this is Scripture’s image of the final state of the “Great City” of Babylon following its total destruction. And what is the image given to us by the Dimonds? Drum roll please… 
                                                                
                                               An animal video on the façade of St. Peter’s Basilica.

A what? An animal video. That’s right. According to the Dimonds, a goofy 3-hour video of animals on the façade of St. Peter’s back in 2016 represented the final state of Babylon after its cataclysmic destruction. In those fateful three hours, one of Scriptures most oft-repeated prophecies was fulfilled as St. Peter’s Basilica literally became the "cage of every unclean and hateful bird". And what convinced the Dimonds that this was the fulfillment of the prophecy? Peter Dimond tells us that the word “cage” can also be interpreted as “prison”, and then points out that the basilica’s columns sort of looked like prison bars with the animals behind them. Ergo, the basilica literally became the "prison of every unclean and hateful bird". And what about the devils and unclean spirits, Peter? Never mind.

I know, I know. It’s laughable – and sadly pathetic. In their defense, I should mention that the video was accompanied by the actual sounds of the animals. Perhaps this is what catapulted it into the realm of the “Apocalyptic”. The truly sad part, though, is that the Dimonds’ fans swallowed this outrageous interpretation hook, line, and sinker – without question, without hesitation, and apparently without the slightest bit of research. In fact, as evidenced by their emails, they saw it as an astounding revelation. No. It’s simply what happens when one desperately tries to reconcile the mundane events of the present with the cataclysmic prophecies of the Apocalypse. 

I should mention in passing that I did actually try and convince the Dimonds of their error regarding this prophecy. In response, Peter told me that I failed to grasp the difference between the Old Testament Babylon, and the New Testament “Babylon”. I’m assuming what he was implying was that the Old Testament prophecies regarding the destruction of Babylon were specific to the ancient city, whereas the New Testament prophecies are concerned with the spiritual “Babylon” – which, again, he maintains is Rome. So let me explain something: The ancient city of Babylon has NEVER been destroyed. Ever. It has continued on for thousands of years as it was in the days of King Nebuchadnezzar, as any Biblical historian can tell you. Granted, it’s gone through structural changes as old buildings decay and are replaced. But the city itself has never been destroyed. The point being, the Old and New Testament prophecies regarding the destruction of Babylon both concern one and the same city. There is only ONE “Babylon” in Scripture marked for destruction – and that is the Apocalyptic “Babylon”. Though in all fairness, I didn’t explain this particular historical fact to Peter. Ergo, we cannot come down too hard on him. Notwithstanding, the point remains the same: The Dimonds’ pathetic… um, I mean prophetic, interpretations are merely the outcome of a desperate attempt to reconcile the mundane events of the present with the cataclysmic prophecies of the Apocalypse. And all because they mistakenly believe they are the Two Witnesses.

They do it again with their interpretation of the “Second Trumpet”. According to the Dimonds, this Apocalyptic event also took place back in 2010. In fact, it happened in the same month as the volcanic eruption mentioned earlier. Both interpretations are good for a few laughs, so I’ll briefly mention this one too. First, let’s read the actual prophecy:
"And the second angel sounded the trumpet: and as it were a great mountain, burning with fire, was cast into the sea, and the third part of the sea became blood: And the third part of those creatures died, which had life in the sea, and the third part of the ships was destroyed." (Apoc. 8:8-9)

No doubt this second trumpet is pretty serious. One-third of the oceans turned into blood? One-third of all sea creatures died? One-third of all sea going ships destroyed? What on earth caused it? Are you ready… The Gulf Oil Spill. That's right. The Gulf Oil Spill of 2010. Remember that one? It covered an area of about .0005% of the world’s oceans (that’s five TEN THOUSANTHS, by the way), a far cry short of the prophesied 33%. And how many ships did it destroy, Peter? Any? Again, another laughable interpretation. Even so, he tried desperately to justify it by claiming that the flaming oil rig looked sort of like a burning mountain when viewed from the shore; and the oily water looked somewhat red (like blood) from the air. And the ships, Peter? Never mind the details. His fans swallowed it. That’s the important thing. Another fantastic revelation by the Two Witnesses, Fred and Bob. No, it’s simply what happens when someone desperately tries to reconcile the mundane events of the present with the cataclysmic prophecies of the Apocalypse. But enough of this stupidity. Let’s move on. 

There are numerous other reasons why I maintain the Dimonds believe they are the Two Witnesses. Unfortunately, most of these will only seem circuмstantial unless one puts in the time to seriously consider them. For this reason, I'll only mention a few of them briefly. Afterward, I'll bring forward the most damning evidence to date.

So first of all, the fact that the Dimonds HAVE NEVER PUBLICALLY DENIED being the Witnesses on their website should throw up a Red Flag. Granted, it may not sound like much; but the fact is, they KNOW their followers suspect they’re the Witnesses. How could they not? Trust me, they know. In fact, the small community that followed them when they moved the monastery from New Jersey to New York, believed they were the Witnesses. And the Dimonds actually tried (sort of) to convince them otherwise. Mind you, this was almost 20 years ago. Trust me, THEY KNOW their followers believe they’re the Two Witnesses. And even IF they weren’t absolutely sure their followers suspected such a baseless absurdity, simple humility would necessitate their saying something on the internet: “If anyone thinks my brother and I are the Two Witnesses of the Apocalypse, we’re not. We never have been, and we never will be. This is why we haven’t fulfilled a single prophecy specific to the Witnesses. Now go home.” That’s all it would take. And yet… not a word. Truly, their silence is deafening.

Secondly, one must seriously consider the danger of pride. The danger of pride is such that it can destroy a person long before he rises to any position of prominence. Even so, the danger is FAR GREATER when the individual reaches such heights – and even moreso when that position involves the instruction of Catholics. Ergo, we must assume beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Dimonds have been PRIME TARGETS of Satan ever since their mission began. This is an undeniable fact. They have been on the Devil’s hit list for some 20 years now. The ONLY question is whether or not they succuмbed to his influence. And if you don't think the devil could influence them, have a look at their teaching on the reception of the sacraments from heretics. Here we find clear proof of the Devil’s influence in the form of an astoundingly blatant contradiction – a contradiction the Dimonds have been parading on their website for some 15 years or so. What am I talking about? As any of their followers know, the Dimond brothers maintain the position that, according to Ecclesiastical Law, under NO CIRcuмSTANCES WHATSOEVER may one receive the Sacraments from the priest of a notoriously heretical sect – that is, a sect classified canonically as “Notorious in Fact”. The reason being, they maintain that although the particular sect isn't formally condemned, its public notoriety nevertheless renders it equivalent to the same. And so, according to the Dimonds, a sect that is "Notorious in Fact" is canonically equivalent to one that has been formally condemned - and is therefore absolutely off limits for the sacraments. Fair enough. So what's the problem, you ask? 

The problem is that whenever asked about reception of the sacraments from priests of the Novus Ordo sect (which they repeatedly condemn as NOTORIOUSLY HERETICAL), they not only allow it, but even encourage it! This, of course, is in blatant contradiction to their own position. This is so obviously in violation of what they interpret as Ecclesiastical Law that nothing can be said in their defense. And again, they’ve been parading this blatant contradiction ON THE WORLD-WIDE WEB for well over a decade. How is this possible? It’s possible because the Dimonds are influenced by the Devil.

Delving deeper into the subject of pride, we must consider the fact that many of Peter’s so-called interpretations of Apocalyptic prophecy are absolutely unique. That is to say, they have never been posited by anyone in the entire history of Catholicism. Take, for example, his interpretation of the prophecy of the Seven Kings. This unique interpretation was accomplished by Peter alone. No one else has ever deciphered it in the way he has. Likewise, his interpretation of the “Mark of the Beast” prophecy is absolutely unique. No one else has ever come up with anything like it. His condemnation of John Paul II as the Antichrist, Ratzinger as the False Prophet, the Novus Ordo as Babylon, etc. are also unique – not in the sense that he originated them, but in the sense that he elaborates on them in far greater detail than anyone else. That is to say, he brings up points that no one else has ever thought of. And we could go on and on: The Abomination of Desolation; the Great Apostasy; the clothing of the Whore; the golden cup in her hand; the identity of the Beasts. All of these interpretations are absolutely unique to the Dimonds in their most intricate details. That is to say, even though the brothers may not have been the first to initiate such interpretations, they certainly refined them – and to a degree never before done by any other apologist. And, of course, we could add the prophecies already mentioned: the Fifth Vial, the Second Trumpet, and Apoc. 18:2.

Now, one cannot accomplish such a feat without thinking to some degree that he is special. “If I am being enlightened about Apocalyptic prophecy, and my revelations are absolutely unique, then I must be someone special.” The conclusion would be inescapable. Frankly, under the circuмstances, anyone would think the same. I would. It's perfectly normal. In fact, it would be completely unreasonable to assume otherwise. This being the case, we can safely say the Dimonds believe they are at the very least special – "enlightened" by God as to the proper interpretation of Apocalyptic prophecy. Again, such a belief would be perfectly normal.

Moreover, consider that there are TWO of them. No one is ignorant of this point. In fact, this coincidence alone is probably one of the most powerful influences on the minds of their followers – that is, in regard to the question of whether or not they are the Two Witnesses. Were there three or four brothers, no one would ever suspect any of them were the Witnesses. But since there are two of them, this automatically forces the question. But does the fact that there are two of them not likewise bear on the mind of the brothers? Of course it does. They’re not that stupid. Combine this with the fact that THEY KNOW they are teaching a remnant of Catholics via the most visited “Traditional” website on earth; during an era of spiritual insanity never before seen; and that they recently acquired an enormous financial settlement (on the feast of St. Benedict, no less). With these considerations, and many others daily on their mind, it's only natural to assume that they would imagine themselves to be the Two Witnesses. If one were to consider nothing but the seemingly fantastic insights into Apocalyptic prophecy, and the fact that there are two of them, it would be unreasonable to assume otherwise. How could anyone doubt?

Indeed. How could anyone doubt? Well, I'll tell you how: Problem number one is that ALL of their prophetic interpretations are wrong – every single one of them. I'm not talking about those specifically mentioned above. No. I'm talking about every single interpretation of Apocalyptic prophecy they've ever attempted; since the very founding of their monastery until the present day. Every single one of them is dead wrong. 

As mentioned earlier, because they believe they are the Two Witnesses, they attempt to interpret ALL Apocalyptic prophecy according to the events of the present. That is, during the relative era of their mission. And this is the problem. This one single error – that they believe they are the Witnesses – lies at the heart of all their prophetic (mis)interpretations. It’s the reason they must alter all Apocalyptic prophecies, and particularly those specific to the Witnesses. Sometimes the alteration takes nothing more than the simple change of a word or two, as we've seen in the above examples; and sometimes it takes an effort of Biblical proportions, such as in the example I'm about to show you. But whatever they do to make their interpretation appear correct, you can rest assured, it is the outcome of alteration.

This next example says it all. It is not only proof of the most arrogant desecration of the Word of God, but also definitive assurance that the Dimonds believe they are the Two Witnesses. It concerns their interpretation of the prophecy of the Seven Kings from chapter 17 of the Apocalypse. Here we find an interpretation by Peter so intricate in its details it's somewhat hard to imagine that it’s complete baloney. Even so, you will see that not only is their interpretation totally fabricated, but that it ONLY works if one accepts that they are the Two Witnesses. 

Now, those familiar with the Dimonds' interpretation of this prophecy might realize where I'm going with this already; but for the sake of the others, I'll elaborate a little. After all, this is an important piece of the evidence. Let's first have a quick look at their interpretation. In a nutshell, the Dimonds maintain that the Seven Kings are actually popes. The list begins with Pius XI, who was elected in 1922. John Paul II is said to be the sixth king, as well as the Antichrist himself. Benedict XVI is said to be the seventh and last king, who, according to the prophecy, is supposed to have reigned “a short time” (in reality, his reign surpassed the average – and was longer than over 150 of his predecessors). Anyway, in a nutshell, this is the Dimonds’ interpretation of the prophecy of the Seven Kings. So how do they desecrate it? In regard to the specifics, all we need to know is what the Angel said to St. John: 
“And here is the understanding that hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, upon which the woman sitteth, and they are seven kings: Five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come: and when he is come, he must remain a short time.”

Now, notice that the Angel interpreting this prophecy is speaking directly to St. John. And not only is he speaking to St. John, but he is using language that clearly indicates he is speaking from the perspective of the moment. We know this because of the tenses used by the Angel. For instance, when mentioning the kings, he says that five ARE fallen. Here he’s obviously speaking from the perspective of the moment – that is, in the present. It's as if he said "Five kings have fallen already, as of this very moment I'm speaking with you, St. John." This is absolutely crucial to realize because proper interpretation of this prophecy depends upon both the exact words of the Angel, and the scenario in general. If the tense of the words, or the scenario, is altered in any way, proper interpretation is impossible. Five kings "are fallen" as of the time of the vision. One king "is" as of the time of the vision. And one king has "not yet come" as of the time of the vision. 

Notice also that in speaking of the sixth king, the Angel even stresses the word "is". He doesn't qualify it with "IS reigning", or "IS alive", or "IS about to fall". He simply says "one IS". We see here the Holy Ghost clearly focusing our attention on the perspective of the moment. So then, in order to properly interpret this prophecy, one absolutely has to rely on the details of the scene as well as the tense of the words. Again, if any of these details are altered in any way, proper interpretation of the prophecy is impossible. And yet, if the details AREN’T altered, the Dimonds’ hallowed Fantasyland would find itself in serious trouble – for they could no longer interpret the prophecy as pointing toward John Paul II, much less his compatriots. Enter the ingenious Peter Dimond… 

In an astounding fit of pride and arrogance, Peter imagines HIMSELF the recipient of the Angel's interpretation. In other words, in his warped mind, he imagines that the Angel is not actually speaking to St. John, but to him personally. This maneuver accomplishes two things: First of all, it allows for the Angel’s interpretation of the Seven Kings to be fulfilled from the perspective of Peter’s time, as opposed to St. John’s time of 2000 years ago. Ergo, Peter is free to supply us with RECENT dates for the reigns of the kings – um, I mean popes. Specifically, it allows him to interpret the king who “IS” as John Paul II (who I’m assuming was reigning at the time of Peter’s amazing “insight”).

Secondly, by pulling off such a barbarous mutilation of Scripture, the Dimonds inadvertently arrogate to themselves the role of the Two Witnesses. Granted, one may argue that nowhere in this interpretation did the Dimonds actually say that they were the Witnesses. And you’re right. They never did. And they never will. Yet who can deny that, in this one momentous act of Scriptural desecration, they have not openly declared themselves to be the most special pair of individuals walking the earth today? The Angel was literally talking to THEM – the two Dimond brothers. The "Voices in the Wilderness". Imagine that.

Frankly, we don’t need to look any further than this for evidence that the Dimonds believe they are the Two Witnesses. This slick maneuver on their part says it all. Even so, we have seen them altering several other prophecies specific to the Witnesses in order to make them fit their own experience. They’ve altered the 1260-day duration of the Witnesses’ mission because it conflicted with their own. They’ve replaced Enoch and Elijah with Sts. Peter and Paul in order to reconcile the Witnesses’ mission with that of their own. They’ve seriously twisted the prophecy regarding the location of the Witnesses’ death in order to make it fit their own agenda. They believed the ordinary blackout in Brussels to be an Apocalyptic sign simply because it followed THEIR radio show. And finally, in a fit of unsurpassed arrogance, they’ve declared to the world that THEY ALONE are the recipients of the Angel’s words to St. John. Do we really need more evidence? Oh yes, and they’ve never publicly denied their followers’ suspicions…

The Dimond brothers believe they are the Two Witnesses. It's blatantly obvious. They've believed this for nearly two decades, and continue to this very day ever more convinced. Though we must admit that under the circuмstances, anyone in their shoes would believe the same – apart from the truly humble, that is. And yet, if they really ARE the Witnesses, then why the need to manipulate the above prophecies? Indeed, if they were the Two Witnesses, there would be absolutely no need to manipulate anything at all. Not a single word. As obvious as this fact is, however, I can’t help but suspect some of their fans might still have a difficult time accepting the truth. But fear not. Fortunately for us, God has given the world a number of very specific prophecies with which to identify the Witnesses – prophecies so easily understood that even a child can interpret them. The reason being, proper identification of the Two Witnesses is of paramount importance for mankind. This is why the Holy Ghost described the mission of the Witnesses in such clear detail - unlike the rest of the Apocalypse, which is veiled in mysterious language. 

Let’s not forget, the world is coming to an end. Countless numbers of people are going to die within a very short amount of time; and many of God’s beloved Israelites will be among them. The message of the Witnesses is mankind’s last chance. It is God's final call to repentance. Ergo, its importance cannot be overstated. And not only is the Witnesses’ message a final call to repentance, but these two individuals will be responsible for identifying the most dangerous man to ever walk this earth; and the greatest deceiver the world has ever known – a man who will destroy so many souls that if God did not stop him, no one would be left alive. Needless to say, this man MUST be exposed. The Witnesses are also destined to announce the coming of the Messiah, as if that were a small matter. All this to say, their message is of the most vital importance for mankind. For this reason, God has given us VERY SPECIFIC PROPHECIES with which to identify them. This is why Chapter 11 of the Apocalypse, which describes the Witness' mission, is written so plainly, as opposed to the rest of the Apocalypse, which is cloaked in mysterious language. Again, God wants everyone to be able to identify the Witnesses. 

Ergo, we have to ask the inevitable question: Do the Dimonds fulfill any of these prophecies? And if so, which ones? We’ve already covered the prophecy of the duration of the Witnesses’ mission, which the Dimonds clearly failed to fulfill. But in addition to this, have they stopped a single drop of rain from falling? Have they turned a single drop of water into blood? Have they called down a single solitary plague upon anyone? At any time? Anywhere on earth? Are they wearing sackcloth? Do “all those who dwell on the earth” hate the Dimonds? Do they even know who these two clowns are? Remember now, the brothers claim that we are at the END of the Tribulation period. The Era of the Apocalypse and the “Great Apostasy” is nearly over. They said it themselves. And yet, they still haven't fulfilled one single prophecy specific to the Witnesses? Not one? And not only have they NOT fulfilled any of the prophecies, but they have been acting gravely contrary to the way true Catholics should act – openly and publicly defying what they, themselves, claim is Ecclesiastical Law. Even worse, although they’ve been told of this particular error (by me personally), they still continue in arrogant defiance to this very day. This could hardly be the attitude of God’s Anointed Prophets. 

And this blatantly defiant attitude is merely the tip of the iceberg. As I write this, the Dimonds KNOWINGLY maintain a doctrine that is not only condemned under threat of anathema by the Council of Trent, but contradicted by Pius XI in THE VERY QUOTE the Dimonds use to “prove” their own position. That’s right. For well over a decade, God’s Anointed Prophets have been accidentally parading a quote on their website that FLATLY CONTRADICTS THEIR OWN POSITION – in an effort to “prove” that they’re right! You can’t make this stuff up.

[colo

I'll try to read this again later, but I am not following why you think they believe they're The Two Witnesses.

[...]

All of that content, and you neglect to post a citation or any admission by the Dimonds proving they believe themselves to be the Two Witnesses.

Fail.

If you don't care about the Dimonds, why are you quasi-praising his defamation of their character.

I don't support his defamation, i'll make that clear.  I don't support his scriptural commentary concerning them, I just found some of the factual-based commentary interesting (the historical aspects, like Jerusalem having 7 hills).

On a somewhat related note, the Diamond Bros have put out MANY erroenous and stupid videos (they said JPII was the anti-christ for heaven's sake!).  To date, they have never retracted their errors, admitted any mistakes, or allowed that they are wrong, even partially.  They have no integrity in my eyes.

Right??  

And this too...

Sounds to me like this fella tried to debate the Dimonds and got crushed...now he's all butt hurt and trying to replace the Dimonds opinions with his own.

Actually, I challenged them to a debate several times regarding the Apocalyptic issues, and they refused each time. The "Two Witnesses" argument wasn't even going to be brought up - just the prophecies. Still, they refused. 

Nor are my positions "opinions". They are interpretations based upon actual Scriptural evidence. Ergo, my positions conform to Scripture. The Dimonds, on the other hand, conform Scripture to their positions - as I proved. By way of example, their conception of the Great Apostasy is based upon nothing but their own personal belief. It has absolutely no basis in either Scripture, or reality. Although they correctly make reference to the Arian Heresy of the 4th century as the prototype of the Great Apostasy, the mistaken belief that they are the Two Witnesses forms the basis for their entire misinterpretation of this end-times phenomenon. As I explained in my thread on this very subject, the essence of the Arian Heresy was NOT a state of widespread heresy. The essence of Arianism was the denial of the Divinity of Christ. This is what it was all about. And this is the prototype given to us by God. Ergo, the true Great Apostasy will be characterized by a world-wide denial of the Divinity of Christ. This position is based upon Scripture, history, and a little common sense, as I explained in my thread. The Dimonds' position, on the contrary, is based solely upon the belief that they are the Two Witnesses - and therefore, according to them, we MUST be living in the Apocalyptic Era. 

This one belief - that they are the Two Witnesses - is the FOUNDATION of ALL their prophetic (mis)interpretations. It is the only "proof" they rely on for their interpretations. This is proven by the fact that if the Scriptures don't conform to their position, they alter the Scriptures.    

Haha. I have no idea who the anti christ is, and I never claimed to, but I can say with 100% certainty that he wasn't JPII.  

The Diamond Bros support and defend a lot of Truth.  I've known a few people who started their conversions because of them.  But they also cause some unnecessary divisions in Trad-land and they also make many PREPOSTEROUS prophecies, JPII being one of them.  

If they would just tone it down a bit in relation to fellow Catholics (i.e. Stop yelling 'heretic' at everyone) and if they would stop using prophecies to get attention and web hits, I would respect them more.  As I said above, if they would just stick to teaching the Faith, they would be an excellent help to the Church.  

sedevacantist - how about you tell us what you "don't believe" about baptism.  You have already said you do not believe in baptism of desire(or the three baptisms I am reasonably assuming), and that you do not believe in feeneyism/"ancient belief".  And, please, no israeli psycho babble.

sedevacantist quote from a couple of weeks ago :

"As for your accusing me of "Feeneyism", this is not true at all. Fr. Feeney believed in "Baptism of Desire" - only he believed in the ancient version, as opposed to the modern one. I have never once believed in either. But that's another subject for another thread."

I would also like "Sedevacantist" to cite the ancient version of baptism of desire that Fr. Feeney believed.  Can he quote Fr. Feeney?