LOL! Certainly not. Those were folks who turned away from him because they would not think a little further to the spiritual truths He espoused in His statement.
In order to be the Kinsman Redeemer for the Abrahamic Covenant, He has to do what Abraham and no other human being has been able to do, Else He could not fulfill the role. If He were to break the Law (or the prophets), His sacrifice would be nullified. So breaking the Law (which includes changing the law) cannot have occurred, and any interpretation that supposes He did must be false, or our Christ is not Christ.
In my mind, that premise is undeniable - and the resulting conclusion must follow. It is a simple thing.
To borrow from Ronaldus Magnus: It's not that our liberal friends are ignorant; it's that they know so much that isn't so.
That rationale is as absurd and contrived as the denial of Matthew 16:18.
Certainly, the Pharisees who accused the disciples of "harvesting on the Sabbath" though they had a rabbinical "slam dunk'" too.
BTW, how is the denial you posit NOT applicable to being "born again" aside from the fact that no one left him, with his approval, over it?
Conversely, how is our denial of your dogma any less legitimate?
You can't have it both ways.
And therein lies your problem....
Not to mention that if Christ had cone that, He would have been a liar because of what He said here.
Matthew 5:17-20 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Catholics always end up in such a mess because they don't know Scripture.
Then they spew some more nonsense that it's just *a mystery* of *the faith*.
Long and short of it is the bread and wine remained bread and wine as a symbolic representation of the new covenant, just as the bread and wine of the Passover was a symbolic representation of the Passover.