And what historic church did Jesus found?
It's identified in the bible as kataholis, Greek for "whole world" translated as universal or catholic.
The word "clergy" is not in the New Testament.
Neither is the word "Trinity" or "Incarnation" Clergy is a general term describing those who have been ordained as deacon, priest (elder), or bishop.
What is the biblical definitions of the church?
Short answer: a faith community overseen by a bishop. The Book of Acts makes this quite clear. Long answer: One, Holy, Catholic (Universal), and Apostolic.
Where does it say in scripture that the apostolic ministry was centred in Rome?
It doesn't have to. After the death of James in 44 A.D., the center shifted from Jerusalem to Rome. There are biblical inferences to this, but not explicit. There is plenty of recorded evidence both from the writings of the earliest Christians and from secular historic documents. Scripture doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. but does that prove it didn't happen??? Of course not. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove early church history based on the Bible alone, but some people don't care, they try and do it anyway.
So if the NTC had Elders to rule them, any church that deviates from that is not a church is that right?
A legitimate community of believers can exist without an elder, but there is no evidence that such a community was not in communion with an elder. Whole communities were excommunicated for their deviance, such as the Arians, until later but that cannot happen without a centralized authority. An invisible church cannot bind and loose because binding and loosing are visible acts done by real physical leaders in a real, visible church.
We do find churches in the New Testament determining their own affairs that is why Paul wrote letters to them to correct them.
Paul was a unifying factor, so this statement doesn't make sense.
Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls and will give an account for their work. Let them do this with joy and not with complaints, for this would be no advantage for you.
Nowhere does Paul say any church would look after their own affairs, just the opposite. What is the expiration date of Hebrews 13???
How early is the earliest time as there is no mention of any successors in the New Testament?
Col 1:25 – Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.
2 Tim. 2:2 – this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles. It can't get any more explicit than that.
The idea that a church was independent, local and congregational is rejected. No, it is not because the scriptures talk about the church at Corinth. The church at Rome. The church at Ephesus. The Church at Thyatira.
There is no evidence that these churches were not under the supervision of a bishop or Apostle.
It teaches the congregational aspect when it teaches how the congregation are to use the gifts of the spirit and says "each one has..."
Projecting todays individualism into Scripture has undermined todays unity. It has led to gross division which is condemned in the NT.
Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.
The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2) The apostolic leadership in Jerusalem consisted of Peter, James, John with the other apostles and elders. This is what we mean by "Magisterium", or teaching authority. That word is not in the Bible, but only a stubborn blindman would deny it's existence.
The mission of the infant church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22,27) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide on the Gentile decision and a letter of instruction was sent to the new churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. (Acts 15:23) We see Philip, John. Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches back to the centralized church in Jerusalem.
After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’”
This forces you to ignore the writings of Ignatius (and others) because it conflicts with your false version of church history. I appreciate you asking questions rather than throwing around stupid accusations.