Peter, nothing you say here controverts the basic fact that the only argument given in the whole of the New Testament for identifying Jesus as the coming Lord is that the status of kyrios is something that is given to him by God; it is bestowed on him, he is made Lord, appointed judge and ruler of the nations. The argument about pre-existence in Philippians 2:6-11 is debatable, and not for the reasons that Dunn gives. But that’s beside the point. The New Testament does not say, either here or anywhere else, that the status of Lord was restored to him. It was given to him.
By the way, Philippians 2:6-11 is not a “hymn or credal statement of praise to Jesus”. If it is a hymn or creed at all, it is about Jesus. It is in the third person.
As for your bizarre dismissal of the relevance of Daniel 7 for understanding the authority by which Jesus forgives sins:
Although Mark’s use of the phrase ‘the Son of man’ at this point in his narrative has frequently puzzled commentators, it may well be significant. In Dan. 7.14, the authority exercised by the one like a son of man is authority delivered to him by the Ancient of Days. The scribes protest that only God can forgive sins—and they are right—but Jesus acts here as God’s representative and with divine authority. It is not in his own name or in his own strength that he acts, since he exercises a power which has been given to him, and yet he it is who exercises it. (M.D. Hooker, The Gospel According to Mark, 87)
Jesus proclaimed the remission of sins like a prophet…. The scribes rejected this pretension to the prophetic office as so much arrogance. They sensed in Jesus’ declaration of forgiveness an affront to the majesty and authority of God, which is the essence of blasphemy. (W.L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, 95).
Although Jesus refers to himself in using the title…, it does remain a title and cannot adequately be translated with the simple “I.” In the response of the crowds (v 8), the title is obviously not understood, but the readers of Matthew’s Gospel would not have missed its significance. If the Son of Man is the person of Dan 7:13-14 and he begins through his presence to bring the blessings of the eschaton (one of which was the forgiveness of iniquity [cf. Isa 33:24; Jer 31:34; at Qumran, CD 14:19; 11Q Melch 4-9]), then it is no surprise that he has the authority to forgive sins on the earth as an intrinsic part of his ministry. (D.A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 234)
The authority of the Son of Man is to be traced back originally to Dan 7:13-14. (J. Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, 237)
When Jesus says, “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (v. 6a), the self-designation “son of man” and the qualifier “on earth” point to Daniel 7, where a human (“one like a son of man”), coming with the clouds of heaven, approaches God (the “Ancient of Days”) and from him receives authority (Dan 7:9-14). The “clouds of heaven” are antithetical to “on earth;” with the latter presupposing the former. “Ihat is to say, because the “son of man” receives authority from heaven, he possesses the authority on earth to, among other things, forgive sins. (C.A. Evans, Matthew, 200)