Stop being thick.
 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Christianity is terribly ambiguous about whether the nitty-gritty of law still holds, because the Catholic church chose to deify Paul, who said in Galatians, that we should trust Jesus, without actually quoting what Jesus said. Since Paul had some other warped ideas about Jesus, we have no idea whether Paul was lying, when he said we should trust Jesus, to abandon the Jewish law.
Throughout the gospel of Matthew, which appears to be written, or at least edited by those who opposed Paul, Jesus only criticizes the hand washing rules, as being invented laws. Although he quite obviously specifies some new super-laws, he doesn't criticize any of the old ones. He appears impotent to say anything against Jewish law, and ultimately gets killed by mere mortals.
Matthew says that "the prophets and the law prophesied until John", while Luke, a supporter of Paul, changes that statement, to look like the law ends with Jesus. However, Luke still utters the same statement as Matthew: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."
The effect is that Luke just contradicts himself. Luke admits to being a compiler of hearsay, rather than a witness. The problem is that most scholars reckon that Mark/Matthew was written first, so it looks like Luke fudged it. However, both series of books show signs of being derived from each other, and being edited asynchronously, in ways we will never get to the bottom of, because Christians deleted all the original works.
Which one is correct?
Paul admits in Galatians that the mainstream Jewish Christian sect is still trying to follow Jewish laws, and that they are headed by Jesus "brother", James, whatever that means. Scholars don't know if that was Jesus' real brother, or a spiritual follower. If it was Jesus' real brother, then he was still trying to follow Jewish law, by Paul's admission. This means that other witnesses of Jesus, came away with the distinct impression that you were supposed to follow the whole law. You'd think Jesus would have mentioned it to them.
When you read the gospels, you don't come away with the impression that Jesus is undermining the Jewish laws. Due to a quirk in the origins of the revolution, the Pharisaic Jews were trying to implement changes to the rules, without conflicting with them. Sure, some of them might have thought that the ancient laws were ridiculous, but the conservatives thought you should follow them all.
The next problem for Christians is how you are saved. Are you saved by works or faith?
Matthew gives the impression that you are saved by being righteous, and following the law, and that there is a hierarchy in heaven "he shall be called the least
in the kingdom of heaven". That means we are not equals in heaven. The people who followed less of the law, and were least Jewish, will be low ranking.
Jesus was a God, who couldn't get his message across, by direct witnesses. The gospels, which claim to be a witness to Jesus, were written after Paul, (probably by non-witnesses) and contradict Paul (who admits he wasn't a witness). They even warn about Paul, "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."
Both the Gospels and Paul try to get the last word in.
The result is that Christians follow Paul's advice, that you can adhere to whatever laws you feel are correct. Paul typically argues his case, using cherry picked snippets of OT, rather than direct quotes from Jesus. "Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." By Paul's logic, since the law curses you, the solution is not to follow it. Having abandoned it, then there must
be another solution. (Obviously) The one that Paul sells to you.
Paul then changes his mind, between Galatians and Romans. Many scholars have wondered if he is contradicting himself, but a conclusion can be made, that his epistles are not formal works, but ad hoc
responses to pastoral emergencies.http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/law.pdf
Therefore Paul's opinion is not really specified properly. You have to guess what he really believed.