I don't even understand this sentence. It doesn't make any sense to me. I take it that you are demanding Scripture texts for this claim: that Christ left a visible Church.
Your assumption that there must be a Scripture text for every theological truth is false. Thinking that there must be a Scripture text for every theological truth is a doctrine called "sola scriptura". Sola scriptura is a modern invention, that arose during the Reformation. (The Church originally had no New Testament, until it was written down and then, 300 years after Christ, codified into the official canon by the visible Church. So the Scripture comes to us through the visible Church. Your use of the Scripture, and your dependence upon the Scripture *presupposese* some visible flesh and blood authority to write these books, copy and preserve these books, and then determine which of these books are canonical. If you are interested in a thorough refutation of 'sola scriptura', read Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine edited by Robert A. Sungenis.
Once you have 'sola scriptura' out of your system, then you can read the Church Fathers (since 'sola scriptura' makes reading the Fathers a waste of time). Then, you will see how heretical Gnosticism is, and then you will see how Gnostic is the very notion that Christ established an "invisible" or "spiritual" Church.
-A8
("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse."
There is no reasonable discourse with you.