user13375: Does modern Theravada accept that no real person ends with the break up of the body of a realized one? That the moment after the break up of the body of a realized one is the same as the moment before?
In SN 22.85 With Yamaka (sujato) and alternative translation Sariputta seems to rebut the notion that any substantial change happens during the break up of the body of a realized one:

Now at that time a mendicant called Yamaka had the following harmful
  misconception: “As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a mendicant who
  has ended the defilements is annihilated and destroyed when their body
  breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death.”
Several mendicants heard about this. They went to Yamaka and exchanged
  greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were
  over, they sat down to one side and said to him:
“Is it really true, Reverend Yamaka, that you have such a harmful
  misconception: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a mendicant who
  has ended the defilements is annihilated and destroyed when their body
  breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death.’” “Yes, reverends, that’s
  how I understand the Buddha’s teaching.”
“Don’t say that, Yamaka! Don’t misrepresent the Buddha, for
  misrepresentation of the Buddha is not good. And the Buddha would not
  say that.” But even though admonished by those mendicants, Yamaka
  obstinately held on to that misconception and insisted on stating it.

After talking with Sariputta it seems Yamaka has a change of heart after this question by Sariputta:

“What do you think, Yamaka? Do you regard the Realized One as one who
  is without form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”
  “No, reverend.” “In that case, Reverend Yamaka, since you don’t
  acknowledge the Realized One as a genuine fact in the present life, is
  it appropriate to declare: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a
  mendicant who has ended the defilements is annihilated and destroyed
  when their body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death.’?”

Here is the same portion in Venerable Bodhi's translation:

“But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real
  and actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare:
  ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose
  taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of
  the body and does not exist after death’?”

So does this mean the break up of the body is just like any moment in this very life where moment to moment no person truly ends or changes because a real person doesn't truly exist in the first place?
EDIT:
I'm aware that orthodox Theravada tenet systems posit the selflessness of persons, but are either agnostic or outright reject the selflessness of phenomena. However, most pali canon suttas seem to stop at the coarse level of selflessness, but here Sariputta seems to be speaking about the subtler levels of the selflessness of persons if only in embryonic form. Is this true?
Also, if the body of a person is regarded as a real substantial thing in Theravada how about the consciousness of a person? Is that regarded as a real substantial thing?

user8157: Imo, the idea that the idea of "death" ("marana") is applicable to a Realised One is also part of the wrong view of Yamaka.
This being said, the termination of life (not "death") of a Realised One is described as follows (in my correct alternate translation): 

‘Friend, form is impermanent; what is impermanent is unsatisfying (unsatisfactory); what is unsatisfying has ceased and passed away. Feeling… Perception…
  formations… consciousness is impermanent; what is
  impermanent is unsatisfying; what is unsatisfying has ceased and passed
  away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.

As for the question, it appears lost in the "spell" of translation and particularly the term "anupalabbhiyamāna" found in  "saccato thetato tathāgate anupalabbhiyamāne" ("don’t acknowledge the Realized One as a genuine fact").  
Since Sariputta instructs Yamaka at the beginning about "not-self" and since Sariputta provides an analogy about "not-self" at the end; the term "anupalabbhiyamāna" (which is found in this stock phrase in many suttas) probably needs to be examined deeply before answering this question.
Below is merely a guess but I guess the term māna must be important because it has the connotation of "self". 
an + 
upalabbhati + 
māna
To conclude, I think the core message of the sutta is the Tathagata is not a self, person or being. Not being a "self", "death" does not happen at the termination of life. All that happens is the ending of the impermanent aggregates.

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall
  be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a
  conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is
  a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming
  all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage
  at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and
  does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might
  be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he
  die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should
  he yearn?
MN 140


user254: I think SN 22.86 is very similar but simpler.
I read it as saying:

It is inappropriate to associate a "self" with the aggregates
It's inappropriate to say that a Tathagata exists after death, doesn't exist, neither, or both -- IMO that makes it one of The unanswered questions -- instead pay attention to what the doctrine does say (e.g. that it is inappropriate to associate a "self" with the aggregates)

See also for example MN 22:

And how is a mendicant a noble one with banner and burden put down, detached? It’s when a mendicant has given up the conceit ‘I am’, cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump, exterminated it, so it’s unable to arise in the future. That’s how a mendicant is a noble one with banner and burden put down, detached.
When a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, the gods together with Indra, Brahmā, and Pajāpati, search as they may, will not find anything that such a Realized One’s consciousness depends on. Why is that? Because even in the present life the Realized One is undiscoverable, I say. Though I speak and explain like this, certain ascetics and brahmins misrepresent me with the false, baseless, lying, untruthful claim: ‘The ascetic Gotama is an eradicator. He advocates the annihilation, eradication, and extermination of an existing being.’ I have been falsely misrepresented as being what I am not, and saying what I do not say. In the past, as today, what I describe is suffering and the cessation of suffering. This being so, if others abuse, attack, harass, and trouble the Realized One, he doesn’t get resentful, bitter, and emotionally exasperated.
Or if others honor, respect, revere, or venerate him, he doesn’t get thrilled, elated, and emotionally excited. He just thinks: ‘They do such things for what has already been completely understood.’ So, mendicants, if others abuse, attack, harass, and trouble you, don’t make yourselves resentful, bitter, and emotionally exasperated. Or if others honor, respect, revere, or venerate you, don’t make yourselves thrilled, elated, and emotionally excited. Just think: ‘They do such things for what has already been completely understood.’
So, mendicants, give up what isn't yours. Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness. And what isn’t yours? Form isn’t yours: give it up. Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness. Feeling … perception … choices … consciousness isn’t yours: give it up. Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness. What do you think, mendicants? Suppose a person was to carry off the grass, sticks, branches, and leaves in this Jeta’s Grove, or burn them, or do what they want with them. Would you think: ‘This person is carrying us off, burning us, or doing what they want with us?’” “No, sir. Why is that? Because that’s neither self nor belonging to self.” “In the same way, mendicants, give up what isn't yours. Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness. And what isn’t yours? Form … feeling … perception … choices … consciousness isn’t yours: give it up. Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness.

I think there's more doctrine about "the support of consciousness" in SN 12.64:

Suppose there was a bungalow or a hall with a peaked roof, with windows on the northern, southern, or eastern side. When the sun rises and a ray of light enters through a window, where would it land?” “On the western wall, sir.” “If there was no western wall, where would it land?” “On the ground, sir.” “If there was no ground, where would it land?” “In water, sir.” “If there was no water, where would it land?” “It wouldn’t land, sir.” “In the same way, if there is no desire, relishing, and craving for solid food, consciousness does not become established there and doesn’t grow. …

See also for example Why is the Buddha described as trackless?

I'm not sure of ruben2020's answer, saying, "Before parinibbana, there was no self called Buddha that has suddenly ceased to exist after parinibbana".
I think it's true to say "there was no self that has suddenly ceased to exist".
I'm not sure whether it's true (whether it's Theravada orthodoxy) to say "there was no self called Buddha" -- see How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't? -- there is doctrine in the suttas including "it's inappropriate to associate the self with the aggregates", and "'I am' is a conceit" and "'am I?' is a result of attending inappropriately" -- but see also e.g. "Buddha never denies the existence of the self" (and that answer's being upvoted and disputed in comments) -- and there's an Abhidhamma answer which I think says it depends on context and convention.

user471: I think you (the OP) have mistakenly assumed that the Pali Yamaka Sutta supports the Mahayana Madhyamika concept of emptiness that nothing is substantially real.
Actually, the Yamaka Sutta quote of the Bodhi translation indeed confirms emptiness, but it's the Theravada emptiness and not the Mahayana emptiness. And what is the Theravada emptiness? It's that all phenomena is empty of a self (see Suñña Sutta). Before parinibbana, there was no self (as in an eternal self or soul at the core of the Buddha's being) that has suddenly ceased to exist after parinibbana.
However, the Pali suttas do not explicitly support the Mahayana Madhyamika concept of emptiness. The  Buddha's body was considered to be real but not constant or permanent. It is subject to change, arising and ceasing. But that does not mean that it's not real in Theravada.
To prove this, I'll quote Itivuttaka 44:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "Monks, there are these two forms of the Unbinding property.
  Which two? The Unbinding property with fuel remaining, & the Unbinding
  property with no fuel remaining.
And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
  case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
  has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing
  to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the
  disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of
  passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
  fuel remaining. (Note1)
And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
  the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
  who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished,
  will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with
  no fuel remaining." (Note2)
Note1 and Note2 by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
  With fuel remaining
  (sa-upadisesa) and with no fuel remaining (anupadisesa): The analogy
  here is to a fire. In the first case, the flames are out, but the
  embers are still glowing. In the second, the fire is so thoroughly out
  that the embers have grown cold. The "fuel" here is the five
  aggregates. While the arahant is still alive,
  he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do not burn
  with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the arahant
  passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates here or
  anywhere else.

Next, to answer the question:

OP: So does this mean death is just like any moment in this very life where moment to moment nothing truly ends or changes because it
  doesn't truly exist in the first place?

Before and after the Buddha's final passing, all phenomena is empty of a self. The Buddha's five aggregates existed and was subject to change, arising and passing. Nibbana existed and does not change, arise or pass away. But the self (in the sense of an eternal self or soul at the core of our being) never existed at any time, in all phenomena, including the five aggregates and Nibbana. This is the interpretation according to Theravada.
Your interpretation appears to be different and based upon the concept of Mahayana emptiness.

13375: <p>Does modern Theravada accept that no real person ends with the break up of the body of a realized one? That the moment after the break up of the body of a realized one is the same as the moment before?</p>

<p>In SN 22.85 <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn22.85/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">With Yamaka (sujato)</a> and <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn22.85/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">alternative translation</a> Sariputta seems to rebut the notion that any substantial change happens during the break up of the body of a realized one:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Now at that time a mendicant called Yamaka had the following harmful
  misconception: “As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a mendicant who
  has ended the defilements is annihilated and destroyed when their body
  breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death.”</p>
  
  <p>Several mendicants heard about this. They went to Yamaka and exchanged
  greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were
  over, they sat down to one side and said to him:</p>
  
  <p>“Is it really true, Reverend Yamaka, that you have such a harmful
  misconception: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a mendicant who
  has ended the defilements is annihilated and destroyed when their body
  breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death.’” “Yes, reverends, that’s
  how I understand the Buddha’s teaching.”</p>
  
  <p>“Don’t say that, Yamaka! Don’t misrepresent the Buddha, for
  misrepresentation of the Buddha is not good. And the Buddha would not
  say that.” But even though admonished by those mendicants, Yamaka
  obstinately held on to that misconception and insisted on stating it.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>After talking with Sariputta it seems Yamaka has a change of heart after this question by Sariputta:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“What do you think, Yamaka? Do you regard the Realized One as one who
  is without form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”
  “No, reverend.” “In that case, Reverend Yamaka, <strong>since you don’t
  acknowledge the Realized One as a genuine fact in the present life</strong>, is
  it appropriate to declare: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a
  mendicant who has ended the defilements is annihilated and destroyed
  when their body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death.’?”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here is the same portion in Venerable Bodhi's translation:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“But, friend, <strong>when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real
  and actual here in this very life</strong>, is it fitting for you to declare:
  ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose
  taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of
  the body and does not exist after death’?”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So does this mean the break up of the body is just like any moment in this very life where moment to moment no person truly ends or changes because a real person doesn't truly exist in the first place?</p>

<p>EDIT:</p>

<p>I'm aware that orthodox Theravada tenet systems posit the selflessness of persons, but are either agnostic or outright reject the selflessness of phenomena. However, most pali canon suttas seem to stop at the coarse level of selflessness, but here Sariputta seems to be speaking about the subtler levels of the selflessness of persons if only in embryonic form. Is this true?</p>

<p>Also, if the body of a person is regarded as a real substantial thing in Theravada how about the consciousness of a person? Is that regarded as a real substantial thing?</p>
 8157: <p>Imo, the idea that the idea of "death" ("marana") is applicable to a Realised One is also part of the wrong view of Yamaka.</p>

<p>This being said, the termination of life (not "death") of a Realised One is described as follows (in my correct alternate translation): </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>‘Friend, form is impermanent; what is impermanent is unsatisfying (unsatisfactory); what is unsatisfying has ceased and passed away. Feeling… Perception…
  formations… consciousness is impermanent; what is
  impermanent is unsatisfying; what is unsatisfying has ceased and passed
  away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>As for the question, it appears lost in the "spell" of translation and particularly the term "<em>anupalabbhiyamāna</em>" found in  "<em>saccato thetato tathāgate anupalabbhiyamāne</em>" ("<em>don’t acknowledge the Realized One as a genuine fact</em>").  </p>

<p>Since Sariputta instructs Yamaka at the beginning about "not-self" and since Sariputta provides an analogy about "not-self" at the end; the term "<a href="https://suttacentral.net/define/anupalabbhiyam%C4%81na" rel="nofollow noreferrer">anupalabbhiyamāna</a>" (which is found in this stock phrase in many suttas) probably needs to be examined deeply before answering this question.</p>

<p>Below is merely a guess but I guess the term <a href="https://legacy.suttacentral.net/define/m%C4%81na" rel="nofollow noreferrer">māna</a> must be important because it has the connotation of "self". </p>

<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/define/an" rel="nofollow noreferrer">an</a> + 
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/define/upalabbhati" rel="nofollow noreferrer">upalabbhati</a> + 
<a href="https://legacy.suttacentral.net/define/m%C4%81na" rel="nofollow noreferrer">māna</a></p>

<p>To conclude, I think the core message of the sutta is the Tathagata is not a self, person or being. Not being a "self", "death" does not happen at the termination of life. All that happens is the ending of the impermanent aggregates.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall
  be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a
  conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is
  a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming
  all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And <strong>the sage
  at peace is not born, does not age, does not die</strong>; he is not shaken and
  does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might
  be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he
  die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should
  he yearn?</em></p>
  
  <p><em>MN 140</em></p>
</blockquote>
 254: <p>I think SN 22.86 is very similar but simpler.</p>
<p>I read it as saying:</p>
<ul>
<li>It is inappropriate to associate a &quot;self&quot; with the aggregates</li>
<li>It's inappropriate to say that a Tathagata exists after death, doesn't exist, neither, or both -- IMO that makes it one of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The unanswered questions</a> -- instead pay attention to what the doctrine does say (e.g. that it is inappropriate to associate a &quot;self&quot; with the aggregates)</li>
</ul>
<p>See also for example <a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn22/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 22</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And how is a mendicant a noble one with banner and burden put down, detached? It’s when a mendicant has given up the conceit ‘I am’, cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump, exterminated it, so it’s unable to arise in the future. That’s how a mendicant is a noble one with banner and burden put down, detached.</p>
<p>When a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, the gods together with Indra, Brahmā, and Pajāpati, search as they may, <strong>will not find anything that such a Realized One’s consciousness depends on. Why is that? Because even in the present life the Realized One is undiscoverable, I say</strong>. Though I speak and explain like this, certain ascetics and brahmins misrepresent me with the false, baseless, lying, untruthful claim: ‘The ascetic Gotama is an eradicator. He advocates the annihilation, eradication, and extermination of an existing being.’ I have been falsely misrepresented as being what I am not, and saying what I do not say. In the past, as today, what I describe is suffering and the cessation of suffering. This being so, if others abuse, attack, harass, and trouble the Realized One, he doesn’t get resentful, bitter, and emotionally exasperated.</p>
<p>Or if others honor, respect, revere, or venerate him, he doesn’t get thrilled, elated, and emotionally excited. He just thinks: ‘They do such things for what has already been completely understood.’ So, mendicants, if others abuse, attack, harass, and trouble you, don’t make yourselves resentful, bitter, and emotionally exasperated. Or if others honor, respect, revere, or venerate you, don’t make yourselves thrilled, elated, and emotionally excited. Just think: ‘They do such things for what has already been completely understood.’</p>
<p>So, mendicants, give up what isn't yours. Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness. And what isn’t yours? Form isn’t yours: give it up. Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness. Feeling … perception … choices … consciousness isn’t yours: give it up. Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness. What do you think, mendicants? Suppose a person was to carry off the grass, sticks, branches, and leaves in this Jeta’s Grove, or burn them, or do what they want with them. Would you think: ‘This person is carrying us off, burning us, or doing what they want with us?’” “No, sir. Why is that? Because that’s neither self nor belonging to self.” “In the same way, mendicants, give up what isn't yours. Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness. And what isn’t yours? Form … feeling … perception … choices … consciousness isn’t yours: give it up. Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I think there's more doctrine about &quot;the support of consciousness&quot; in <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn12.64/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 12.64</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Suppose there was a bungalow or a hall with a peaked roof, with windows on the northern, southern, or eastern side. When the sun rises and a ray of light enters through a window, where would it land?” “On the western wall, sir.” “If there was no western wall, where would it land?” “On the ground, sir.” “If there was no ground, where would it land?” “In water, sir.” “If there was no water, where would it land?” “It wouldn’t land, sir.” “In the same way, if there is no desire, relishing, and craving for solid food, consciousness does not become established there and doesn’t grow. …</p>
</blockquote>
<p>See also for example <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/1992/254">Why is the Buddha described as trackless?</a></p>
<hr />
<p>I'm not sure of ruben2020's answer, saying, &quot;Before parinibbana, there was no self called Buddha that has suddenly ceased to exist after parinibbana&quot;.</p>
<p>I think it's true to say &quot;there was no self that has suddenly ceased to exist&quot;.</p>
<p>I'm not sure whether it's true (whether it's Theravada orthodoxy) to say &quot;there was no self called Buddha&quot; -- see <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/15898/254">How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn&#39;t?</a> -- there is doctrine in the suttas including &quot;it's inappropriate to associate the self with the aggregates&quot;, and &quot;'I am' is a conceit&quot; and &quot;'am I?' is a result of attending inappropriately&quot; -- but see also e.g. <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/15903/254">&quot;Buddha never denies the existence of the self&quot;</a> (and that answer's being upvoted <em>and</em> disputed in comments) -- and there's <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/23531/254">an Abhidhamma answer</a> which I think says it depends on context and convention.</p>
 471: <p>I think you (the OP) have mistakenly assumed that the Pali Yamaka Sutta supports the Mahayana Madhyamika concept of emptiness that nothing is substantially real.</p>

<p>Actually, the Yamaka Sutta quote of the Bodhi translation indeed confirms emptiness, but it's the Theravada emptiness and not the Mahayana emptiness. And what is the Theravada emptiness? It's that all phenomena is empty of a self (see <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.085.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Suñña Sutta</a>). Before parinibbana, there was no self (as in an eternal self or soul at the core of the Buddha's being) that has suddenly ceased to exist after parinibbana.</p>

<p>However, the Pali suttas do not explicitly support the Mahayana Madhyamika concept of emptiness. The  Buddha's body was considered to be real but not constant or permanent. It is subject to change, arising and ceasing. But that does not mean that it's not real in Theravada.</p>

<p>To prove this, I'll quote <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than.html#iti-044" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Itivuttaka 44</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "Monks, there are these two forms of the Unbinding property.
  Which two? The Unbinding property with fuel remaining, &amp; the Unbinding
  property with no fuel remaining.</p>
  
  <p>And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
  case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
  has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing
  to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable &amp; the
  disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure &amp; pain. His ending of
  passion, aversion, &amp; delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
  fuel remaining. (Note1)</p>
  
  <p>And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
  the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
  who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished,
  will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with
  no fuel remaining." (Note2)</p>
  
  <p><strong>Note1 and Note2 by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:</strong><br>
  With fuel remaining
  (sa-upadisesa) and with no fuel remaining (anupadisesa): The analogy
  here is to a fire. In the first case, the flames are out, but the
  embers are still glowing. In the second, the fire is so thoroughly out
  that the embers have grown cold. The "fuel" here is the <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">five
  aggregates</a>. While the arahant is still alive,
  he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do not burn
  with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the arahant
  passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates here or
  anywhere else.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Next, to answer the question:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>OP:</strong> So does this mean death is just like any moment in this very life where moment to moment nothing truly ends or changes because it
  doesn't truly exist in the first place?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Before and after the Buddha's final passing, all phenomena is empty of a self. The Buddha's five aggregates existed and was subject to change, arising and passing. Nibbana existed and does not change, arise or pass away. But the self (in the sense of an eternal self or soul at the core of our being) never existed at any time, in all phenomena, including the five aggregates and Nibbana. This is the interpretation according to Theravada.</p>

<p>Your interpretation appears to be different and based upon the concept of Mahayana emptiness.</p>
