An elegant response, but it doesn't actually work. Mark, Luke and Matthew all state that the meal enjoyed *was* a passover meal, not one from the day before.
"Mark 14:12-17 - And on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover lamb, his disciples...went to the city...and they prepared the passover. And when it was evening he came with the twelve and they were at the table eating."
Would you argue that the first verse there describes the rituals associated with the 'Seder', the first feast meal of Passover? Perhaps the meal is so yummy that Jesus wanted to have it the day before too? Is this really credible?
John 13:1-2 claims, "It was just before passover feast... the evening meal was served."
So it's not the passover meal. Sorry, but the versions are incompatible, and I've read (I regret I've lost the source) that this is because John needs to identify Jesus with the slaughter of the passover lamb, thus creating a fullfilment of some 'prophesy' in Isiah that blatantly discusses how to sacrifice animals with not one jot of evidence to suggest it's supposed to be read as a prophesy.
As it happens, I *have* read the entire bible, admittedly quite a long time ago and with no particular desire to repeat the experience whilst so many better works of fiction demand my time. It is incoherant, immoral, solves its problems through violence, pro-ethnic cleansing, unethical, contradictory (how can Genesis provide two contradictory accounts of the... er... genesis?), unethical and of entirely dubious providence. Perhaps more important than any of this is the fact that if Jesus were the messiah, he is supposed to fulfil a whole raft of prophesies that provably have not come to pass, not least of which is 'an end to sin'. I am entirely unable to agree with your conclusions in this or previous posts that God as portrayed in the bible, even if I could accept he existed, is