In the Strong's definition there is only one, yet too as I pointed towards, in the book of Revelation there was more than one, as in various congregations. If one wishes to think of them all as being simply one, in that as written "to the church at Ephesus" etc., and all the other salutation and addressing of "the church at.." the other locations too were still speaking of just one, that would be acceptable, but still not making the entire church then be dictated to needing be led by a singular figure whom those of the church of Rome see as the one singular highmost "bishop" over all
It is that last portion which cannot be firmly established -- not firmly enough, for "primacy" as in being first in some regard, never did equal Supremacy over all others (within the church) much less that even "primacy" is itself inheritable.
How many can be first? Only one. Not only one, then a new only one, then yet another new only one, for they cannot be first if they did not themselves arrive "first".
Even then -- Christ Himself said that the first shall be last, and the last first also. Is there some Romanist method to twist even that into support for popery? I wouldn't much doubt it for there is broad-based "bad exegesis" gene that papacy itself relied upon when it first began to crow about it's own alleged Supremacy.
The idea that [claimed to be] successors to Peter can look at themselves as "primary" and first in a unbroken line -- while ignoring all others "lines" (if one wants to put the "earthly, visible office") fails in part for reason of the existence of other Patriarchates, which themselves never owed their own existence to having been established by anyone from the church at Rome, or from that geographically identified lineage. Don't ask me to be "counting" churches now, when I have already otherwise answered that question.
You still haven’t answered my question of “how many churches”. Do you consider Islam to be a church? Or Taoism? Or Buddihism?
What exactly is your definition of a “church”?
What are you smoking?