I have been following this discussion for quite some time now. Where does it say that Jesus ate and drank after those words? What I find fascinating is that even though the so-called Gospel of John says that Jesus called his blood true drink and his flesh true meat the Protestants refuse to accept it as such, and insist that "true" in only metaphorical!
Your vain attempt to justify your argument by citing the Law is pointless because even Jesus calling his blood the blood of the "new testament" (or covenant) is violating the Law which says the Torah is eternal, and must be observed forever.
This is, yet again, an attempt by the Usual Suspects to make the Eucharist strictly symbolic. The argument goes, “If it wasn’t symbolic, then Christ broke the Law, and Christ never broke the Law.”
Except when He healed a man on the Sabbath, or publicly forgave a man his sins which only God could do, or interrupted the legal stoning of the woman taken in adultery, or ate grain from a field on the Sabbath...
We get around all that by saying that Christ fulfilled the Law, which He did. But it’s wrong to think He was being symbolic, when He specifically said, “My flesh is real meat, and My blood is true drink.” Followers left Him at that point, driven away by the forbidden cannibalistic implications. He did not call them back and say, “Hey, I was only kidding, it was symbolic.”
Where does it say anyone ate and drank after those words?