i typed out a loooong reply to this including references, then the page refreshed and i lost everything 
so i can't be bothered tracking them all down again. here are the cliff notes:
I'm afraid you are wrong on most of what you have claimed.
1. i agree the bible does not say the church has the power to forgive sin ( how could it, it wasn't formed yet) since however the catechism has give the church power to forgive sin and hear confession - i.e. granting them power and wealth.
What catechism is that? John writes in one of his later books (1 John, I believe) that “If we confess our sins, HE is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness, the “HE” being Christ. That ties right into the example of the “Lord’s Prayer”: the confession of sin is to Jesus Christ.
Even in the OT, the priests took up sin offerings on behalf of the people and presented then before the Lord and it was HE who forgave people of sin. Nowhere, in either Testament, does it declare or indicate that the priests themselves had such authority.
2. Jesus never spoke about giving confession either, but there you go - the church was created, and became the most powerful rich force in the world, all the while spreading a religion that its founder - Jesus taught to feed he hungry, and have no money 
The issue wasn't the presence or absence of money. Many rich people (the centurion, Nicodemus, Zaccheus, etc.) became followers of Jesus. And, it took rich (or at least, well-to-do) folk to fund Paul's multiple trips to other countries to preach the Gospel. The issue was where people put their priorities.
3. i never said the bible talks about the sacking of Jerusalem, i was making the point that scholars used that omission to better estimate the date of the gospels - nothing more.
Agreed. And traditional scholars cite that as evidence support the Gospels being written 1st century A.D. Dr. Paul Meier, from the University of Western Michigan mentioned that, when addressing the authorship of Matthew. He cites Matthew's tendency for recording anything perceived as fulfillment of prophecy. Per his words, "
Can you imagine that, if (the Gospel of) Matthew were written anytime after 70 A.D., wild horses couldn't have stopped Matthew from saying, 'And Jesus' words were fulfilled when Jersualem was destroyed'. He doesn't say that; and that's very unlike Matthew."
4. i never claimed the reformation happened due to a mysterious book being found either. Although the reformation wasn't about power to forgive either as you claim, it was about abuse of power, and double standards i.e. adultery, indulgence, bribery etc forgiveness of sin is still widely accepted as a power of the church today too.
For Catholics, maybe, NOT for Protestants. That was my point on why the Reformation started. All that you listed here was fueled by the fact that, once the common man was able to read Scripture for himself, he saw the HUGE gulf that existed between what the RCC taught and what was in "Thus saith the Lord!"
5. the dead seas scrolls contain much more than the standard bible texts - perhaps you should read more about them.
I know that, hence the reason I used the phrast, "By and large".
6. scholars have not agreed that matthew and john were apostles, johns age alone makes it virtually impossible for it to be the same man as the apostle. if they were the same man he would have been well over 100 years old.
Traditional and "liberal" (for lack of a better term) scholars don't agree with the date of the Gospels or their respective authors. In fact, we'll hear more about that over the next few weeks with Resurrection Day/Easter on the horizon. I recorded a show, back in 2005, that deals with this very subject: "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?" from Coral Ridge Ministries, founded by the late Dr. D. James Kennedy. Actually, I had a thread here with clips from that show on YouTube. I can bring it up, if you wish to check it out.
As for John's age, I see little suggesting he'd have been over a century old, if he were the author of the 4th Gospel (as well as those other three books and Revelation). It's my understanding that John was in his early 80s, when he penned his works.
i seem to have offended you with my roll eyes, for that i am sorry. However i sense more hostility than that. If you are a proud Christian i again am sorry if i offended your beliefs, but i believe in facts and like to read and weight the evidence before me. What i have read leads me to my beliefs regarding the church. I was raised a catholic, but years of reading books has revealed much to me.
i am now proud to call myself a Buddhist.
It's not so much that I'm "offended". It's that the basis of your statements is that the canonical Gospels were picked because they contain something that supposedly gives the RCC the authority to commit those abuses you cited, while the books that were left out would have counter that.
My argument is that, regardless of the non-Biblical books, the Gospels themselves contain nothing that would give way to things like indulgences, priests forgiving sins, or any other issue you cited earlier. If anything, they teach the exact OPPOSITE of that. The RCC's power-and-wealth grab (if you will) had little to do with the verses between Genesis and Revelation.
We're both in agreement that the Catholic Church taught/teaches a lot of stuff that is quite contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. The only semantics here is the Canon.
