You have already agreed that the comment to Jesus meant that he gave no consideration to outward appearances.
Perhaps we can dispense with what we both agree it does NOT mean.
“Likewise, when St. Paul pardons the penitents in 2 Cor. 2:10 he does so in the person of Christ. The person of Christ here has enough of personhood to authorize St. Paul to forgive sin. That is consistent with John 20:21-23.”
You assume a meaning of “prosopon” you have not supported.
Paul says what he forgives ‘for their sakes’
“Likewise, when St. Paul pardons the penitents in 2 Cor. 2:10 he does so in the person of Christ. The person of Christ here has enough of personhood to authorize St. Paul to forgive sin. That is consistent with John 20:21-23.”
According to John 20:23 Paul already had the authority to forgive sins when he wrote to the Corinthians so what further would he need?
Paul says what he forgives ‘for their sakes’ with Christ countenancing it or (presence) person.
“Two, that St. Paul did so as Christ was watching, — in the presence of Christ but with no authority of Christ”
A false choice, Paul's authority was not in question or the subject as it already existed as you have pointed out.
That “in the person” at 2 Cor. 2:10 means in “Christ's presence” (not ‘mere presence’) is supported by Vine's, Thayer’s Lexicon, and is so translated by the American Standard Version, The Emphatic Diaglott, the New Revised Standard Version as well as others.
So if you wish to say “person” at 2 Cor. 2:10 is a statement of Paul's authority or something similar, I ask
What is your support for so thinking?
“Two, that St. Paul did so as Christ was watching, — in the presence of Christ but with no authority of Christ. The latter is the unfortuinate version of events offered by some dynamic “translations”. That is smoother for the reader as it does not engage his mind, adn that is the chief objective of dynamic translators.”
Now you're reading the motives of translator's and interpreting their objectives with words they didn't use in their translations!
If you have some evidence of what you say, please, by all means, let's see it!!!
“I don't see what sense it makes if St. Paul pardoned the penitents who had already been pardoned, without attaching the authority of Christ to his pardon.”
As you have said, the apostles had authority to forgive sins so what further authority could be attached?
“Was Christ any less present when the penitents were pardoned the first time?”
The Corinthians had just brought back into the congregation a man expelled because of immorality so Paul assures them that those they have forgiven he also has.
“I think it is clear that St. Paul added that his pardon was in the “prosopon” of Christ in order to invoke the authority of Christ and not merely point to Christ's that presence.”
Again you are arguing against something neither of us has contemplated or expressed, that Paul meant MERELY Christ's presence.
“I think it is clear that St. Paul added that his pardon was in the “prosopon” of Christ in order to invoke the authority of Christ and not merely point to Christ's presence. If you have any explanation of this where the authority of Christ is not claimed by St. Paul, but his presence is mentioned, I'd like to hear it.”
By your understanding of the phrase “in the person”
such an explanation is not possible. The explanations I have given you have rejected per 2 Cor. 2:10.
Obviously you didn't “like it” since you say the authority of Christ is being invoked by Paul in this verse.
If St. Paul had not mentioned "en prosopon Christou" the phrase would be misunderstood in the sense that he only pardons the transgressors in order to please the local church, "for their sake". This is in fact, your misunderstanding also, and it stems from the refusal to see that the authority of Christ is invoked by the finishing clause.