Again, when the law you are referring to was introduced, it was never intended to be the instrument by which man would save himself, but it was the instrument through which man was to be saved. In a very real sense, man is saved through the fulfillment (keeping) of the law. When Christ fulfilled the law, he earned the privilege of life. Those who are in Christ, likewise, share in his righteousness and are declared righteous right alongside him. In that sense, the law has always stood and will continue to stand.
That being said, though, it's important to realize that we basically choose whether the law applies to us individually or not -- through grace, we can choose to be in Christ, or we can choose to stand on our own merits when we're judged. In that sense, too, the law still stands.
The issue here is whether Jesus abolished the law or not. The words attributed to him state that he had not come to abolish the law, that the law would stand and ''all is fulfilled'' - the latter is assumed by many Christians mean that the blood sacrifice fulfilled the law, which therefore no longer applies which, if true, means that Jesus had in fact come to abolish the law.
So we have a problem, where both views cannot be true. At best you could say that the wording is ambiguous, allowing any number of interpretations....which is a problem with the bible, as made evident in the form of numerous interpretations made by various denominations, sects, cults, etc.
