Doesn't 1 Corinthians tell us that Jesus' glorified body has no blood?
As a Bible-believing Christian I must tell you the Catholic Eucharist cannot be the blood of Christ because the glorified Jesus has no blood. The Bible teaches that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 15:50). When Jesus appeared to his disciples after his Resurrection, he said to them, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (Luke 24:39). Notice how he didn't mention his blood? This demonstrates that he had none, so the Catholic Eucharist is a sham.
Your interpretation undermines your own beliefs as a "Bible-believing Christian" and refutes your own argument against the Eucharist. If 1 Corinthians 15:50 proves the risen Jesus has no blood and therefore the Eucharist can’t be his blood, the same text shows he has no flesh and therefore he couldn’t have been raised bodily.
Luke 24:39 shows that the glorified Jesus has flesh ("a spirit hath not flesh and bones"), so 1 Corinthians 15:50 can’t mean resurrected beings have no flesh or blood. What does Paul mean, then, when he declares, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"? He’s saying that natural, physical life as it is now constituted cannot inherit the kingdom of God. A supernatural transformation must occur first (1 Cor 15:53).
You’re correct when you say Christ doesn’t mention his blood in Luke 24:39, but what of it? Under the circumstances, there’s no reason to expect he would mention his blood, so his failure to do so proves nothing.