The Essene Passover was meatless as they were vegetarians. Moreover, as the high priest did not slay the first of the Passover lambs until the afternoon of Nisan 14 on the priestly calendar there could be no Torah compliant Pascal lamb for the Essene Passover. The idea that Jesus and his followers would independently slay a lamb and have their own Torah-compliant Passover before the high priest slew the first Passover lamb in a ritual ceremony is problematic. That idea has its basis in the argument that the institution of Passover in Moses' day occurred in the night of Nisan 14 not Nisan 15.

This question assumes a fact not in evidence. The word used for bread in normal parlance, artos, can refer to either leavened or unleavened bread. While some passionately argue that artos can refer only to leavened bread Luke makes it quite clear that this is not the case at Luke 24:30 where the resurrected Jesus Christ dined at Emmanus. There during the Days of Unleavened Bread, Jesus takes artos, which his two Torah-compliant Jewish hosts gave him to break. He proceeds to break it and hand pieces to his hosts. The context of the Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread necessitate for artos here to be unleavened bread as Torah requires it. Moreover, the normal bread we know today is white, fluffy, and puffed-up, but that was not the case with leavened bread two thousand years ago (see Colbert 2002:22). The leavened bread of that time was a flat bread, similar to pita bread but thin, that one had to tear not brake. Try breaking normal pita bread or a leavened flower tortilla (if you can break them then they have been so overheated that they are not ordinarily eaten). Physically unleavened bread could be broken but leavened bread could not. Anciently, one broke unleavened bread and tore leavened bread. So then, both at the first Christian Passover and in the meal at Emmanus Jesus broke artos. How can the fact that the artos at the Last Supper was unleavened bread be any more unmistakable? The Essenes were Torah-compliant in their Seder except for the Pascal lamb itself.

The cup was evidently the one Jesus used during the course of the meal. Since it was the one he had at hand he decided to use it, filled with wine, to introduce a change of symbolism. The use of the single cup certainly suggests intimacy.

There were two back-to-back Passovers in the year of the Crucifixion. This was possible in the Hebrew Calendar in CE 30 and in CE 31.

The traditional Passover of the Jews had not yet started and buying and selling was still underway in Jerusalem.

The traditional Passover of the Jews had not yet begun. The annual Passover Sabbath (The Feast of Unleavened Bread) began 24 hours after the Lord's Supper.

It was not yet the annual Passover Sabbath which began at the end of Nisan 14 known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread. As a traditional Jew he was free to work on Nisan 14 and then rest on the annual Sabbath (Nisan 15).

A Tuesday night Last Supper necessitates a Wednesday afternoon Crucifixion. Three full days and three full nights in the tomb brings the Resurrection to the nether period between sunset and dark (when the last part of the sun disappears below the horizon at the end of the weekly Sabbath).

From the perspective of Sunday afternoon "Jesus is spending the third day" had already passed. In modern English the sense of the expression is "the third day has already passed" thus the alternate translation of Luke 24:21 is, as it should be exegetically (as it conforms the verse to the context of all the Gospels data telling of the Passion week): "But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, the third day has passed since these things happened." This rendering, showing the dismay of two disciples that Jesus' body was gone and the three days and three nights period was past, is confirmation of Matthew's non-metaphorical literal language at Matthew 12:40. This rendering eradicates any evidentiary value of the Luke 24:21 for demonstrating a Sunday resurrection as it neutralizes the probative value of the passage for that argument.

Biblical prophecy is an important concern to those who believe in biblical prophecy. It is not subject, however, to the strictures of replication and verification required by the scientific method. We understand that for those sensitive to the implications of biblical prophecy it is a different matter. So let's explore the prophecy of Daniel 9. To do so requires more space than we have here so go to The Seventy Weeks Prophecy.

You assume Daniel 9 deals with Jesus of Nazareth. The evidence suggests otherwise. A careful exegesis of Daniel 9 shows that in context the prophecy deals with the Temple in the times of the Maccabees. See The Seventy Weeks Prophecy.

Moreover, consider Luke 23:55-56, which reads "Now the women who had come with Him out of Galilee followed, and saw the tomb and how His body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and perfumes. And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment". First, as Torah compliant Jews they could not have prepared spices and perfumes on the annual Sabbath for that would have been forbidden work. Second, the text indicates that the women rested on the Sabbath following their preparation of spices and perfumes. Unequivocally this context requires a Thursday annual Sabbath, a Friday when the women purchased and prepared spices and perfumes, and the weekly Sabbath.