If Jesus really exists "outside of time," does that change what the cross actually means?

Been thinking about something lately and wanted to see what others make of it.

There's this claim Jesus makes in John 8:58 — "Before Abraham was, I am." Not "I was," but "I am." Present tense, about someone who lived centuries before Him. It's the same phrasing God uses for Himself at the burning bush in Exodus. Most scholars agree Jesus was making a deliberate claim to eternal, timeless existence — not just "I'm really old" but "I'm not inside your timeline at all."

If that's true, it kind of reframes the crucifixion for me. It's not just "a guy died for people's sins 2,000 years ago and somehow that covers people born later too" (which, fair, is a weird enough claim on its own). It's more like: someone who exists outside of time chose to enter it, at a specific point, in a way that could reach every other point simultaneously — past and future.

There's also the objection I've seen come up a lot: "Jesus didn't die as some cosmic sacrifice, He was just executed by Rome like thousands of others." And that's true as far as it goes — from Pilate's chair, it probably did look like routine political management. But Jesus says something odd in John 10:18: "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself." He's claiming He wasn't a victim of the process, He was choosing it.

Curious what people think — does the "outside of time" framing change how you read the crucifixion? Or is it just theological flourish on top of a pretty ordinary execution?