None. The Scriptures never directed believers to form denominations or organizations. This is a bad holdover from the RCC which relies heavily upon "official organization". Find (or form) a group of biblically sound believers and fellowship in a home or business location and do not name your group. The word "church" was made up by the RCC and does not exist in Scripture. Ask yourself, what group did Paul belong to? Right, none except the body of all believers all over the world. You will be able to remove those who do comport with Scripture, yet close enough for solid fellowship.
I think you need to develop this. Otherwise, you've stated something on its face easily refuted.
The word used in the Greek NT is "ekklesia". In Latin this is simply transliterated "ecclesia". The English word "church" derives this way (according to my Websters II):
[ME chirche < OE cirice < LGk kuriakon < Gk kuriakos, of the Lord < kurios, Lord]
Tyndale chose "congregation" rather than "church" in his 1526 Englisth NT translation. There is some unfortunate RCC baggage attached to "church", but the word means "assembly". And it is not uncommon for people to associate the meeting place with the assemblage, as inaccurate as that is. (This rhetorical devise is called metonymy which substitutes one word or phrase for another with which it is closely associated.)
So, the word "church" is not the issue, but the "concept" or meaning. I think what you intended to say is that there is no notion of a "universal" church with an official priesthood taught in the Bible. The Bible calls us "saints"/"called" (Romans 1), a "priesthood" (1 Peter 2) all those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, Jew or Gentile. All who believe are the "children of promise" according to Romans 4:16 and Galatians 4:28.
What? Really?
First off, yes: the church of Jesus Christ is the universal body of all redeemed believers saved by the substitutionary atonement of Christ thanks to the Holy Spirit's call. But the scriptures not only use the word 'church' in that universal context (Matt. 16:18), but also in the individual/local context (Rom. 16:27 and literally dozens of other places). Generally speaking, it's used to describe a local body of believers, though there was a main organization (which I'm about to mention).
Next: what group did Paul belong to? Clearly, he was trained, sent out by, and answered to the Church at Jerusalem. He then, of course, planted numerous new individual churches between there and Rome.
I believe you would subscribe to this next thought based on your writing, but scripture actually encourages groups of 'offical organizations' as both a means of helping organize and do all the necessary work and also preserving a protecting adherence to the scriptures. This practice goes back to Moses (see Exodus 18). This is why both deacons and elders are established within the New Testament. Clearly, the apostles filled that role as elders from Jerusalem. That would seem to be the purpose of your post: to protect the scriptures.
Now that being said, the extent that such leadership correctly performs such duties may be up for serious debate. Obviously the PC-USA has failed in that mission, and I would encourage all members of such congregations to leave that denomination in search of another that at least does a better job.
Look, no religious organization is perfect. It is the responsibility of those leaders to listen to criticism and make changes whenever the find themselves out of scriptural harmony (e.g., Paul correcting Peter - Gal. 2:14). It is also the responsibility of individuals to know the scriptures so they can know a heresy when it appears. I would argue that it is harder to see groups exercise self-correction in both tiny (congregational churches) and enormous (RCC) organizations for reasons that should be evident: power, special interest biases, and poor accountability. But no group is immune: they will all have their own 'style' or 'emphasis' biases. The best we can do is to do our servant work as best we can and humbly point out issues as they come up. The scriptures remain our guide for all of this, up to and including "remov[ing] those who do [not] comport with Scripture."
Sorry so long... wasn't exactly a soundbite-length set of ideas.
Catholics are still standing firm but I don’t expect you to report this.
The Church predates the Bible. St. Paul helped establish the Catholic/Orthodox episcopate.
There wasn’t an agreed upon New Testament until over 300 years after Jesus ascended to heaven. So what did the faithful do without their King James Bible?