I respect your right to believe how you will and this may need to be where we agree to disagree, but let me just say a little bit more on this one point. When you say that nowhere in the NT is the Lord's Supper said to be symbolic, I part ways with you. My take is that the whole thing HAD to be understood as symbolic in order for the Apostles to even teach it after Christ ascended as well as how the Holy Spirit brought it back to their remembrance everything that he had taught them.
If it HAD been meant literally, then when Jesus said he was "living water" and whoever drank of him out of their bellies would flow living water, why is there no such ordinance for drinking the water of life? He said he was the "door to the sheepfold", the "bread of life", the "horn of salvation", the "light of the world", the "lion of the tribe of Judah", our "Passover", the "everlasting rock", the "true light", the "true vine", the "word of life", the "bridegroom" and the shepherd and overseer as well as several hundred other titles. All of these titles and attributes speak of him in symbolic and figurative ways BUT still true language.
When the early Christians observed what is called the Eucharist - which means "thanksgiving" - they used the same object lesson tools that Jesus did. The bread, which was torn, was his body which was torn or broken for us. The cup, the fruit of the vine, was his blood which was shed for us/our sins and whenever those people together went through the actions of the ritual, they were doing it in remembrance of him. Not one person - until many, many years later - thought that the bread was really changed into Jesus' flesh, because it was eaten as a sign that the person had received Jesus already. The same with the drinking of the cup. It was a sign that the participant by drinking the cup had received the blood of Christ as payment for their sins. So, though they identified the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, it was symbolic. As anyone could clearly see, the bread did not change. The wine did not change. Even in the doctrine of transubstantiation, the "elements" remain the same. Whatever the state of those consecrated "elements" - be it earthly or spiritually - they are still bread and wine, what they are.
When the followers of Jesus left after he spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, I don't really think they left because they were afraid he really meant it in some kind of gruesome way, but that he wasn't going to just be there to feed their physical needs, he was wanting to fill their spiritual needs more. In fact, it was the spiritual hungering and thirsting that he wanted to sate. The Jews were used to having symbolism in their rituals. All were signs and figures of a spiritual reality.
Like I said, we may never agree about this subject just as the early church fathers were not in unanimous agreement regardless of what historians may say. What is more important is what we think of Jesus' sacrifice. Is it enough to pay the full penalty of all our sins and accomplished once for all at Calvary? Or does it need to be repeated in an "unbloody" manner again and again to be a continuing sacrifice for sin which must be added to in order to be effectual? That is the most important part.
He never held up any other object and said, “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood.”
Jesus did say He was all those things, and in truth He was.
But, it was only the bread which He said was HIM.
As for the unbloody sacrifice being repeated over and over.
Jesus’ sacrifice is not repeated over and over, it is the same sacrifice once and for all that is made present to us.
It is similar to what we say on Easter, “This is the day the Lord has risen.”