When the moon is in the Seventh House, and Jupiter aligns with Mars . . .
That is a matter of interpretation. There are no 2,000 year old people still living, so the one’s standing there did not see His return and if He did return no one seemed to write about it. I know the RCC translates generation to be different than we do now, but Matthew describes the generations of David to Jesus the same as we do now. Some theologins say a generation is a hundred years, and that still would make the things happening in the first cenruty, even if some did live to be 95 or so, (we do know that Ramses the 2d live for 90 years). We do not know if John’s revelations are fact, just belief in what John said, and we do not know his state of mind. His revelations seem to contradict what Jesus is quoted as saying. Some things are interpreted after the fact.I think when the people saw things that didn’t add up they decided it must have meant something else!
I don’t know whether this will apply or not, but I always thought hell was described as burning.
There must be thousands of varieties of hell in print. It is not so much what they are, but if there is any truth to them. A question hard to answer.
No really, the ‘end of the Aion’ or ‘end of the age’ Jesus mentions corresponds to, well, I don’t think I have the proper terminology here, but celestial ages? Referring to the constellation in which the sun rises, which slowly changes over the course of 26,000 years because of the Earth’s wobble, to eventually include all 12 Zodiac signs. The whole bit with Moses and the golden calf had to do with the end of the Age of Taurus. Jesus appeared to usher in the Age of Pisces (according to whom you ask I guess, and which we are nearing the end of now). Next up is Aquarius, according to basic astronomy.
If I’m wrong go ahead and set me straight, I don’t mind at all. I could swear there was a thread about this though…
Well, the fact that you do not consider Luke to be part of the bible would seem to explain some of your beliefs: 
You ignore the salient fact that there was no single view of the afterlife among either Christians or Jews at that time, any more than there is now.
You can make a case that Judaism did not have a tradition of everlasting punishment that was later adopted in Christian theology, but your absolutist claims are without foundation. Even given that Luke was writing for a Christian Gentile audience, there had to have been some trasdition of fiery punishment for the parable of Jesus to have made any sense to his audience.
The word translated as “Hell” there is Hades in the Greek, and it reflects some Hellenistic influence about temporary punishment and reward the Sheol/Hades. That parable does not refer to the Christian concept of Heaven and Hell, but a Hellenistic Jewish idea of temporary punishment/reward in the underworld prior to resurrection and final judgement.
Except that a zodiacal age would be about 2160 years, which does not fit at all.
2000 years before Jesus was not Moses but much closer to Abraham & 2000 year before Abraham was (strict Biblical chronology-wise) Adam, so even rounding off to 2000 years for an age, we’d have Taurus from Adam to Abraham, Ares from Abraham to Jesus (the Ares connection being the ram sacrificed in Isaac’s place).
There’s no evidence that the Hebrew Bible writers, Jesus or the Apostles had any awareness or interest in the Precession of the Equinoxes- astrological symbolism, sure- but not zodiacal ages.
The main passage in which Jesus discusses “the End of the Aion” is Matthew 24, paralleled by Mark 13 & Luke 21 & kinda resonating in the Revelation of John. In the three Gospel passages, “the End of the Aion” is connected with the Destruction of the Temple and "the Sign of Christ’s Presence (a better translation of ‘parousia’ than ‘coming’), so if Jesus was discussing anything other than His personal return at the Last Judgment, it would have been the End of the Old Covenant Aion, which also fits with his denunciation of the Judean religious establishment in Matthew 23.
Since the Greek Hades is described in pretty much exactly the way that the Hebrew Sheol was described, the very fact that the rich man complains of the fire indicates that the word was being used outside etymological tradition. This corresponds to the contemporaneous description of punishing fires in the afterlife that appear in a number of Apocalyptic works of the period.
I have already noted that the issue of permanence is irrelevant to the discussion at that point. However, Kanicbird made the claim that “there is no burning hell in the bible” and that claim is contradicted by the passage in Luke.
My supposition would be that there were a number of different traditions and beliefs held by different people at the time–just as there are different beliefs held by people today–and that some of those beliefs solidified into the mainstream teachings of Judaism and Christianity in the period following the first century. We know what the current traditions are among the various religious systems and we have a decent idea of the several (occasionally conflicting) views held by people in the first century. I simply object to absolutist claims that one thing or another does not appear in scripture when one can quote a contradicting passage directly from scripture.
…