Actually, no. Your logic is fallacious, because you are comparing two different things as if they were the same. The prohibition against consuming blood was given by God Himself; the tradition of washing hands was developed by the priests and Pharisees. There is a WORLD of difference between overturning a man-made tradition and overturning a Law given by God.
With regard to Paul, if you read the Scripture in context, he is clearly addressing the issue of the Jewish Christians trying to make the Gentile Christians live under the Mosaic law. Paul's point is that after the Cross, we are no longer subject to the Mosaic Law because it was completely fulfilled by the life and death of Christ. Rather, the Church is governed by the grace of God. The moral laws of God are written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit, not on tablets of stone. But once again, that was AFTER and as a RESULT OF the death and resurrection of Jesus. Not before.
And as I told Arthur, I am not trying to change your mind - just allow others to see the flaws in your argument and tradition.
You may think you are doing that but you aren't. As anyone who wishes can read the article on catholic.com and see for themselves that you still haven't shown how what is said THERE, is wrong.
Is Jesus' command to drink his blood a violation of God's law?
For those who wish to see for themselves how your reply lacks.