And although you deny it, I did in fact supply multiple valid reasons for the exception. I am not asking you whether this is true, but informing you of it.

You gave two reasons: 1). Jesus said it and 2). It's different. Number two is begging the question and number one has no rational basis for it to be a reason for exception. Here is your entire response to me:

Christ's own prediction that he would return within the lifetimes of the people standing there listening to him is an exception. Not because of special pleading but first because Christ himself said it (and if you're willing to reject the legitimacy of a direct quotation of Christ, why believe anything in the Bible?) and secondly because it doesn't belong in either of the two categories described in the preceding paragraph.

I count two reasons for the exception. The rest if the response has no relevance to why it ought to receive an exception on those two claims.

Did any of that happen during the destruction of Jerusalem? If not, your argument's also been destroyed.

Partially. The Kingdom of God is inaugurated at the resurrection. Te destruction of Jerusalem is the sign of God's Kingdom. The judgement comes at Jesus' return, and is unrelated (in sequence) to the other two. You're conflating events when there is no reason to do so.

I'm aware of some books about this. And it seems probable to me. But the New Testament is not written from that perspective. It's written in such a way as to suggest that Jesus was always regarded as divine.

Again, the past twenty years of scholarship are against you on this point. The gospels present Jesus as divine but the revelation of Jesus' status comes only after the resurrection.