I'll add Edward Fudge's video here as well.

Lecture by Edward Fudge from Lanier Theological Library on Vimeo.

I just grabbed it for my Kindle.

An examination of the original Greek apparently concludes that those at Colossae were keeping the Sabbaths and Feasts as a "shadow of things to come".......Jesus had already come and gone, so to speak, but they were still celebrated as a "shadow of the good things to come" because the autumn feats and what they represented had yet to be fulfilled.

Right. Christ was sacrificed once. His sacrifice continues to cleanse us as we "keep the feast" (purge sin from our lives) in him each and everyday; not just during the Passover week. This is what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 5.

Then there is his reminder to the Colossians:

Therefore do not let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink, or in the matter of a feast, new moon, or Sabbath days—these are only the shadow of the things to come, but the reality is Christ!

If God's being is manifested, it's God not someone else.

Those don't show "God's being" manifested in someone else.

See above.

 

Clearly? No.

 

 

Explain this then:

 

"And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God."

The angel was God's special emissary, speaking on His behalf as the manifestation of God's being. This is not without Biblical precedent.  (cf. Exodus 23:20-21; Judges 2:1-4).

How do you explain Exodus 3:2 in light of verses 4-6?

Clearly? No.

Exodus 3:2.

From what I can gather ...."The construction of the Greek verb translated  "let us keep the feast" is called horatory subjunctive, which is "commonly used to exhort or command ones self and ones associates" The use of the subjunctive is used to "urge someone to unite with the speaker in a course of action upon which he has already decided"  Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics p464. It is clearly not intended therefore metaphorically."

I'm sorry, but how is this "clearly not intended" to be metaphorical?

Here's a blast from the past.
 

The invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar is, of course, not where the difficulty lies:
 

Nebuchadnezzar went up the valley of the NIle as far as Elephantine, and on the way back completed the rave of Egypt, but the course of his subsequent operations is unknown.

Record of Nebuchadnezzar have been found in the Delta area, in the Isthmus of Suez, so that the fact of the invasion of Egypt is really beyond dispute.

W H Boulton, 'Egypt', page 141

The only problem with this prophecy is that we have no historical record to verify it. But that is the only issue with the prophecy. The time for this destruction is certainly available within the chronology of Babylonian and Egyptian history (from Nebuchadnezzar to Cambyses has been suggested as early as Gill in 1748, and is still favoured by modern sholars), but we have no external witness to the Biblical description.

This being the case, the only problem here is that we have no independent verification of the prophetic record. I'm happy with that. I am prepared to take it on faith. I can understand you're not happy with that. I can understand you don't want to take it on faith.

I wonder how 'Think of a person suffering from multiple personality disorder' will go down with the punters.

I'll post a brief writeup tomorrow.