Contradiction with Matthew 5:17
This verse states that Jesus did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it, suggesting the enduring relevance of the law, which contrasts with Colossians 2:17 that refers to the law as a shadow.
Matthew 5:17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Contradiction with Romans 3:31
Here, Paul asserts that faith does not nullify the law and emphasizes its establishment, which seems to oppose the notion in Colossians 2:17 that the law's requirements were a shadow of things to come.
Romans 3:31: Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Contradiction with James 2:10
This verse indicates that failing in one point of the law makes one guilty of all, implying the continued significance of the law, contrasting with Colossians 2:17's depiction of the law as merely a shadow.
James 2:10: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
Contradiction with Matthew 5:18
Jesus emphasizes that not even the smallest part of the law will disappear until everything is accomplished, which differs from the implication in Colossians 2:17 that the old laws are shadows of what was fulfilled in Christ.
Matthew 5:18: 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.
Paradox #1
Colossians 2:17 could be seen as conflicting for some because it suggests that certain religious practices and festivals were just a shadow of what was to come, meaning they were temporary and not the ultimate focus. This could seem inconsistent to people who believe these practices should still be observed as essential parts of faith.