How do Trinitarians explain Jesus' response to the scribes and Pharisees at Luke 5:20-24? Luke 5:20-24 has Jesus forgiving the sins of a paralyzed man.

&quot;When Jesus saw their faith, He said, “Friend, your sins are
forgiven.” 21 But the scribes and Pharisees began thinking to
themselves, “Who is this man who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive
sins but God alone?” 22 Knowing what they were thinking, Jesus
replied, “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? 23 Which
is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and
walk?’ 24 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority
on the earth to forgive sins...” He said to the paralytic, “I tell
you, get up, pick up your mat, and go home.”&quot;

Trinitarians think that the scribes and Pharisees were incorrect here in that Jesus was not blaspheming because he was, indeed, God. Yet, instead of simply stating he was God, Jesus says something different.

&quot;But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on the
earth to forgive sins ...&quot;

If the scribes and Pharisees were wrong in thinking Jesus was a man, why didn't Jesus correct them, but instead reinforce that belief by calling himself 'Son of Man' and saying he has 'authority' (why would God need to say he has authority to do something)?
In Trinitarian theology, Jesus is both God and Man, so the title &quot;Son of Man&quot; isn't incorrect in that regard.
Throughout Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus generally encourages the &quot;Messianic secret&quot; -- He doesn't directly state He is God. Instead He does or says things which lead sincere people to that conclusion.
This miracle relies on a somewhat subtle argument. The Pharisees accuse him of blasphemy for stating his sins were forgiven because only God can forgive sins. They aren't wrong on that point, but suppose Jesus were a fraud, He could say &quot;Your sins are forgiven&quot; which would, yes, be blasphemous as it would be claiming a power which belonged to God, but there would also be no way to prove or disprove that He wasn't God. Similarly if he stated, &quot;but I am God,&quot; it couldn't be directly disproven.
Forgiveness of sin is not an observable act -- there is no physically discernible change that proves that Jesus did in fact accomplish what He said, so on the surface the Pharisees cannot distinguish the act of a blasphemer from God being present.
Hence, the miraculous healing. The argument thus becomes, given that Jesus can miraculous heal the paralyzed man, which only God can do, He must be God and thus can forgive sins.