A good start would be to define what you mean by "Torah" in the first place. Is it the ten commandments given by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai or the six hundred+ laws further spoken of throughout the rest of the Pentateuch? NOWHERE in the New Testament writings are there commands for believers in Christ (Christians) to keep the WHOLE law in order to either gain salvation, keep salvation or maintain a relationship with God. You want to presume that ALL Christians at one time "kept Torah" - though you haven't explained what that means - and that the "Church" through time perverted what God intended for us to know even two thousand years later. I just don't buy it.
A case in point WOULD be the Sabbath. Jesus said the sabbath was made for the man and not man for the Sabbath. It is a day of rest and Paul goes further to explain that this day of rest was something, "Each must be fully convinced in his own mind." (Rom. 14:5) Jesus "kept" Torah because he was a Jew, the Son of God, who fulfilled the law perfectly so that he might make propitiation for the sins of the world.
Jesus said that if we loved him we would keep his commandments, so what are His commandments?:
Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them." (John 14:21)
This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. (I John 3:23-24)
The Books of Moses. The Pentateuch. That is Torah.
NOWHERE in the New Testament writings are there commands for believers in Christ (Christians) to keep the WHOLE law [...]
Wherever it is referring to Torah, it is necessarily speaking of the WHOLE law. But one must be careful to discern what is actually being spoken of, as in the Greek, there is no distinction between Torah and Halakha, and even at times, I would submit, Roman civil law. Without some experience with Torah, one can easily miss the fact that the passage is referring to something else (usually Halakha).
For instance, in Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council, the question is whether one has to be circumcised to be saved... The Torah does not require circumcision of adults, and especially not 'to be saved', so one knows this whole passage is talking about Halakha - the Law of the Elders, the Jewish Tradition, which Yeshua summarily rejected.
To further bolster that position, The 'yoke' the Apostles rejected necessarily MUST be Halakha, because the 'yoke' of Yeshua is necessarily based upon Torah, because He necessarily kept Torah.
[...] in order to either gain salvation, keep salvation or maintain a relationship with God.
There is the sticky wicket - I reject any idea that Torah affords salvation - That, we know, is only found in One place. But if you would care to wipe the Greece from your eyes, you will find that Torah is a part of a relationship with YHWH - It is the 'way' of His House, which He keeps, and His Son keeps... Do you think then that His Bride would not? Can the Head keep Torah and the body refuse it? Wouldn't the Sons of YHWH follow the way of YHWH's House too, even as a son on earth follows his father's way naturally?
Jesus said that if we loved him we would keep his commandments, so what are His commandments?:
His yoke is to love YHWH with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself - The BIG TWO. But the big two are a summary of the Big 10, which are a summary of the rest - Torah is necessarily indivisible, and true, or YHWH is not God. His challenge to those that follow the posers is that what He said in the beginning is what will be in the end. That is primarily why Yeshua cannot have changed it, nor added to it, nor made it null.
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. His word cannot be made null, nor will He change His mind.