Of course, it had always been forbidden. This is precisely why so many departed when Jesus DID demand that we drink his blood.
I don’t see how you can possibly say that “no way” would Jesus demand that we drink his blood, when, in John 6, Jesus DOES demand that we drink his blood.
And if you say that his words were merely symbolic, why would Jesus even speak SYMBOLICALLY about doing something that was forbidden?
Unless, of course, Jesus was God, in which case he had the authority to establish a new law, a new covenant, and a new sacrament.
Just as Jeremiah was told to eat the scroll right?
Your statement is in direct contradiction to Scripture. The prohibition against consuming blood was part of the Law of Moses. For Jesus to have demanded others to consume blood would have broken the law of Moses, i.e., been sin.
Now you might argue that since Jesus is God, He could change the law. But Jesus said He did not come to overturn the law, but came to fulfill the law in every respect:
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…" Matt. 5:17-18
By your statement, you are saying He did not fulfill the Law, which would have made Him a sinner, and unable to be our Savior.
Jesus could not have demanded that people violate the Law and sin.
HE was the one who established the Law. He could not violate it and remain sinless.