The thing is, instead of denying what is written down, I am carefully examining what is written down, and extrapolating the meaning as reported, rather than the meaning centuries of men in power have attached to it. The history of the concept of hell as eternal torment n Christianity is very interesting - until Augustine, that concept really was not in the minds of the early church fathers, because they read Jesus' sayings as they were: explicit images, no doubt, but of destruction, not eternal torment. They knew what Jesus meant by eternal fire, they knew that in Jude Sodom and Gomorrah were pointed to as having been destroyed by eternal fire as an example of what would happen to those who were evil, and they knew that Sodom and Gomorrah were utterly destroyed. That the fire was eternal because it was from an eternal source, that eternal fire didn't mean eternal torment, but quite the opposite. They knew Jesus' many references to gehenna were pointing out the destruction of the wicked. The idea of an immortal soul suffering for eternity was not in their paradigm.
But good old Augustine decided he liked a bit of Plato, and so went with the idea of the immortal soul. The Roman Catholic church began to twist scripture to suit them, and so used it as an oppressive tool, and then here comes Dante and suddenly we have this doctrine which was never intended.
The OT didn’t really have a concept of Hell...at least not as a place where you’d go and be tortured for eternity. (Hades was not Hell). In the OT, once you were that, that was basically it.
That is exactly what I am saying - I apologise if I am being clumsy. Jesus was talking to an audience who knew what he meant by gehenna, and who knew what he meant by eternal fire in that context. He was talking to an audience who knew what he meant by eternal punishment, the noun being one used many times in the context of something which has happened and is final - the eternal being the result of it (eg eternal sin, eternal judgment - the everlasting outcome of a process, not the everlasting process)
Jesus backed up the OT thinking about Hades as the place of the dead, and talked of eternal life as an offer for those who wished - but never eternal torment for those who didn't, simply the end, as the Jews thought. (Some thought there would be a process of years in gehenna through to eternal life, but that's another story 
)
*He frequently referenced fires, torment and agony. And those are the very words he used whether you like it or not. (Not sure what you mean by “timeframe”. Eternal means eternal).^
Yes, he did, which I've said from the start. But he never placed these things into an eternal time frame. Jesus was serious about judgment of the evil, and when we see the most evil things in this world, we perhaps understand why. But over and above that he talked of mercy, of love, of acceptance, of open arms, of forgiveness.
And the entirety of the Bible upholds the idea that there are not, actually, immortal souls bound one way or the other. The most well-known verse in the Bible, John 3:16, says 'for God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that those who believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life.' it doesn't say that those who don't have eternal life will be tortured forever, it says perish.
There's also the Christian universalist position, which is another story, but many mainstream scholars accept the conditionalist position as the best interpretation (in fact the only one that can be truly backed up.)
I have not made it up. I have come to this position as a result of years of careful study and application, and it is a well-known and mainstream position.
Instead of denying it, I am attempting to shine light on it, because I believe that scripture deserves to be known as it was written and intended as far as possible, as do any texts in antiquity.