Messiah Y-shua defines His attitude to the Law in the Sermon on the Mount 5:17–18: "... till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled" (5:18). However this is not an original text. Original text is absent, unfortunately, but one has a Greek translation instead. These words were not said in Greek. As for Greek, the earliest manuscripts are known from the 3rd CE, while all Greek manuscripts of the Gospels differ in hundeds cases. The Greek version of Matthew 5:18 allows an opposite meaning: *"... till one jot or one tittle pass from the Law, heaven and earth shall in no wise pass". The heaven and earth have not pass yet. Does this mean that the Law is still in force (the first version), or that heaven and earth are passing quickly, because not one jot, but many letters are thought to have disappeared from the Law (the second version)?
If the second version is correct, why do we read "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" in 5:17? Does the fulfilment of the Law mean disappearance of its letters?
Or maybe Christ has not destroyed the Law but transformed it in some new way? However what is then the difference between transformation and destruction when something, polar opposite to the Law, is introduced, as in the case "Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people" (Leviticus 7:27) vs. an antipodal urging "This is my blood, drink it!" as Messiah ostensibly says to his countrymen without any explanation even to own pupils who in turn do not become amazed and do not ask for an explanation, but take this as something clear in itself. 
Therefore one has right to put a question: Does Matthew 5:18 correspond to historical truth, but if it does, does Matthew 26:28 "this is my blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many" correspond to truth, but is not corrupted by somebody? 
Insomuch that 1) an Eucharist formula has emerged on this basis, namely "Drink from it all of you /.../" (not in the Gospel, but) corresponding to Matthew 26:26 "Take, eat: this is My Body".
Insomuch that 2) there are another words in Luke 22:20, and even more precisely – in the 1 Corintheans 11:25, not contradicting to the Law! See the latter "THIS CUP is the New Covenant IN MY BLOOD" to understand: "This CUP is the New Covenant /made/ in My Blood".
More likely, the Cup means bloody suffering what is obvious from Matthew 26:39 "... if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me", as well as from Matthew 20:22–23 "Ye shall drink indeed from My cup" addressed to the sons of Zavday ("Zebedee").
However does is it not but a reference to blood, in dialogue John 6:53–56, which ostensibly affirms Messiah's prescript to drink His Blood as means of Salvation?
The answer is in participants of the dialogue, whether it takes place among Y-shua and mobs, or among Y-shua and Pharisees from Yerushalayim. After he had fed thousands with several breads and fishes, did mobs need any sign of messianism from Him when they persecuted Him to proclaim Him king on the ground of that miracle? Surely not: He was even compelled to hide Himself from them (John 6:14–27). 
Howevere the Pharisees, who arrived from Yerushalayim after hearing about the miracle (Mark 7:1), intended to see His special miracle for them as a sign before they can decide whether He is a Messiah, or not. Thus the dialogue takes plece between Y-shua and expert Pharisees who were able to find weak place almost in any argument of any opponent. 
The event took place in the synagogue of Kephar-Nahum (Capernaum), described in John 6:30–58, when those experienced debaters got amazed: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (6:52) because this was an unheared absurd for them, not worthy of a discussion as alien to the Law at all. However in a strange manner, at the same time they ignore words terribly contradicting the law (Leviticus 7:27): "My BLOOD is DRINK indeed" (John 6:55)! Why did they but not grasp stones to stone Him at least only because their vain trudge from Yerushalayim to hear a blasphemy instead to get a sign! [Have in mind, "Pharisees" willingly grasped stones to stone Y-shua, John 10:31, even in the marble-flagged Solomon portico of the Temple, 10:23, with NO stones there at all].
The single explanation of the strange ignoring of blasphemy by the Pharisees can be only that Y-shua DID NOT say it, but the story had been "transformed" by Greek copyists in the same way as Matthew 26:28 earlier.The thing is that Blood, interposed by Greeks into John 6, is alien to the the theme Y-shua develops in course of the dialogue, i.e. of His sacrificial Body as Manna-Bread from Heaven. In the dialogue, 29 phrases deal with this theme, the words Manna, Bread, Body (Flesh) repeated 21 times (cf. The bread I will give is My Flesh which I will give for the life of the world, 6:51, what is especially significant). As for the word Blood, it emerges suddenly in 6:53 and is repeated 4 times only. It disappears after 6:53–56 as suddenly and without any logical connection, as it emerged.
Cambridge and Paris manuscripts of the 5th and 6th c. reveal the interpolation: My blood is drink indeed, 6:55, is absent there, the wording varies in 6:54, but 6:56 is very long (see below). The single uniform sentence with Blood is 6:53 (see Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28, 2013, 315). This means that the copyists first inserted Blood into 6:53. Later somebody noticed the disproportion between the frequency of Flesh and Blood in John 6:30–58 and inserted Blood into 6:54–56 more. The previous interpolation had time to spread everywhere, however the latter three had not. This is confirmed by a long phrase in 6:56. After mentioning Blood in the beginning there follows a long sentence without Blood what seems to be an original text between 6:53 and 6:56.
Any case, this theme is very important for understanding the Eucharist. If there is an interpolation of blood-trinking already in Matthew 28:28, this influences comprehension of the Communion. Bread-Flesh introduces (or brings back) a Christian into the Community of the Covenant, however Cup lifts him to the level of voluntary self-crucifying together with Y-shua in the Golgotha Sacrifice for the salvation of a neighbour. Bread and Cup appear to be of different levels. The Cup is inseparable of practice of everyday life. In it the Communion with the Savior reaches perfection: this is no more any egoistic ritual act of self-salvation. The Communion without the Cap is defective, however it remains defective without a communal comprehension leading to practical implemedntation in life.
A collective sacrifice of an innocent victim, as means to make treaties, was spread in many cultures of pre-history. A guilt for poured innocent blood fell on a transgressor of the treaty (cf. traces in Baltic languages as Lithuanian derybos ‘negotiations’, Latvian Derība ‘covenant’ side by side with Lithuanian dirti ‘to skin’ and darna ‘harmony, consensus’ = Russian дрань ‘torn things’). G-d used this usual way to make treaties when making a covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15:8–18 – "a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces", cf. especially Jeremiah 34:18 – "[To the same] I will give the men that have transgressed My Covenant, /.../ which they had made before Me, when they cut the calf in twain, and passed between the parts thereof").
When giving the Law of the Sinaitic Covenant to the Jews, G-d pointed to inevitable connection of death with a transgressing guilt, as well as to blood as a bearer of life paid for the guilt: Leviticus 17:10–12. Therefore among all ethnicities the Jews are the single nation with a ban on drinking blood. Blood was used as a blessing for those whom a guilt was forgiven. Therefore it was sprinkled on them but never drunk!
Just in this way all worthy of death sinners, who became saved, are sprinkled with the Blood of the Universal One-time Sacrifice of Y-shua the Savior Who has died for them. This was why Salvation was not took away even from proximate murderers of Y-shua, as well as from those who consented to this murder ("Farther, forgive them, for they know not what they do!"). The latter for themselves affirmed benediction of His Blood for their children as part of all saved people ("His Blood be on us and on our children!"). 
Therefore, the definition by Emperor Constantin of the whole Jewish people as murderers of Christ (Constantin's letter of 325 to the First Church Council of Nicea) is Anti-Christian, negating guilt of the whole mankind and the very sense of Redemption, since His Blood is truly "on us and on our children".
Salvation is not a ritual but active participating in sacrificial Body of Y-shua, marked by mystical signs of Bread and Cup. Such comprehension is perhaps much more practical and useful "theology" than wild reasoning of the Greeks about nature and "substances" (hypostasies) of G-d, i.e. about material (!) nature of inapproachable unlimited eternal ultraboundary personificated creative immaterial omnipotent Will. Peak of the Greek thought is seen even in modern Orthodox reasoning about spirit as an "especially thin matter". This is a kind of pantheistic oriental thinking (cf. typical debates which do not distinguish between pantheistic and creationist monism wap.newleft.forum24.ru/?1-6-0-00000017-000-0-0 [July 2019 ]
One cannot understand falsifying Matthew 28:28 and John 6:53–55 without knowledge of Jewish context and dismissing Leviticus 7:27, or understand the practical importance of the Cup. The latter, together with the "theology" mentioned above, is a hard test for the contemporary Messianic Judaism.
Of another sort is a Catholic or Orthodox Worship in which is concentrated a ritual comprehension of Eucharist is concentrated, as a sense of Christianity. This is an innovation of the new religion of traditional Christianity. It cannot been revised from within, however all complains that comprehension of the Eucharist got debased after the II Council of Vatican (people stopped distinguishing between holy and profane) should be addressed to the history of this Christianity, when a local Synod of Laudicea declared anathema for all "Judaizers" who celebrated Sabbath. However it is namely Sabbath which is aimed to divide between holy and profane!
For other numerous falsifications in text of the Gospels (especially that of John claiming guilt of the Jewish nation for the murder of Y-shua, what is the first challenge for Messianic Jews) see comments to currently publicated Greek-Lithuanian translation of the Gospels on biblija.versme.lt/NT.pdf .

Back