Christians how do you bring these verses together one written by Paul and one said by Jesus Christ?

I would have had a lot of trouble with Christianity preached in the false churches .

What a confusion when no two people agree with scripture!

Did Jesus change the law of Moses ? We learn for example that Moses permitted

divorce. Jesus made it very clear that those United by God would remain together.

If they separated and remarried,it would be considered sin unto them.2.An eye for

an eye and a tooth for a tooth was changed to mean , those who kill with a sword shall die by the

sword. Changed to Love they enemies and do good to those who persecute you.

Jesus or the Christ came to fulfill the law .He came so His sheep could understand.

Doing good on the shabbat was not breaking the law.Eating grain on the Shabbat was not work.

It was rightful to rescue anyone on the Shabbat.To hate your brother and hang Him , listening

to false witnesses and inciting a mob to demand His death would be breaking the Torah!!!

Let His blood be upon us and our children did perpetuate sin for the Jews!

False dichotomy. You are misinterpreting Mt. 5:18.

The Law and the prophets, contextually, has to do with what is found in both the "Law" (first 5 books written by Moses) and the Prophets that has the potential to be fulfilled or destroyed.

You are assuming that "the Law" here refers strictly to the legalities of the law, yet there are no laws codified in the prophets. The ONLY thing found in both the Law and prophets with this potential are prophesies.

The job of a sincere believer is to establish the intent of the Author. Therefore, we are obligated to look a bit deeper into the text before forming conclusions. Your demonstrated acceptance of a conclusion based on a face-value reading of de-contextualized verses from a specific translation indicates an agenda to portray the Bible in a negative light.

A small a mount of investigation would have revealed that different Greek words were used in these contexts (which others have discussed). Furthermore, any investigation of Ephesians 2 would have revealed that what was being "abolished" is the distinction between Jews and Gentiles (i.e. the former "enmity"). This was accomplished through Jesus fulfilling the Law (as stated in Matthew).

On top of which, even if there was a valid contention, it would have been between Matthew and Paul (the authors), not Jesus and Paul.

Both true. Why do you want to prove lying?

Because man, ie. the Jews certainly could not do the law, 2 things happened as expressed here:

Jesus, Only Jesus could fulfill God's holy law.

Thus the New Testament occurred and the Old put away.

You're mixing what happened for man with the law.

Man could not keep the law, agreed? So Jesus was the New Man doing it for all.

Once that's done? We're under grace.

Keep searching but not jumping to conclusions.

The key word is fulfilled. He didn't destroy, but he fulfilled. The word for "abolish" in Matthew and the word for "abolish" in Ephesians are actually two different words if you actually look at the Greek.

Matthew's word is kataluó, which can mean to destroy, overthrow.

Ephesians' word is katargeó, which can mean to render inoperative, abolish.

They're not contradicting each other. Jesus is saying what is going to happen and Paul's statement is after it happened. The confusion comes from reading the Bible like a cookbook, as if everything in it had equal authority.