One thing I would mention when using the phrase son of man it denotes origin procreation man as the foundation. . with us son of God denotes the new birth
Son of God the unseen supernatural no origin. No descents, no beginning, no end. .
Son of man is used to represent the temporal Jesus. Not Son of Man.
In that way we are gods, as sons of God but not what we will be. .
Its the kind of reasoning that the Son of man used when accused of blasphemy a mere man making himself out to be God. He never said he was God directly but gave glory to the father who worked with Him just as he works with us by faith. . showing the Pharisees understood not the doctrine.
Look! There was a reason why Jesus Christ referred to Himself as the "Son of Man" and as the "Son of God." He's the Son of Man on His mother's side who's nature is human being. He's the Son of God on His Father's side who's nature is deity. This is why and how He is the only person that has two natures known as the "hypostatic union."
It's also a universal law that a son shares the same nature as its father. You can disprove what I just said by giving me an example of a son that does not share the same nature as it's father. As far as the trial record goes at Matthew 26:57-66 the high priest Caiaphas specifically ask Jesus to swear as to His identity.
Matthew 26:63, "And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether, (that word wheterimplies two options) (1) are you the Christ/Messiah and (2) the Son of God." And btw the high priest did not ask Jesus to swear if He was the Son of Man but the Son of God.
At Luke 22:70 Jesus answers, "Yes, I am." The high priest says at Matthew 26:65. "The the high priest tore his robes, saying. He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy;" It's not blasphemy to claim to be the Messiah. People even do so today. It is blasphemy to claim to be the Son of God the way Jesus meant it. The Jews knew full well what Jesus was saying and that's why they brought up the law at Leviticus 24:16. (John 19:7).
Now, you said that Jesus did not directly say, "I am God." There was a reason for why He did not. By Jesus saying that directly the Jews would have thought Jesus was claiming to be God besides God the Father making Jesus a "Polytheist."
You can read what Jesus did say by "implying" He was God without using the exact words, "I am God. All you have to do is read John 5:17,18, John 8:57,58, John 10:30 -38. John 19:7 and here at the trial record at Matthew 26. In fact, the Apostle John's authorial intent is found at John 30-31. "Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the discipleas, which are not written in this book; vs31, "but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; (The same exact words the high priest ask Jesus at Matthew 26:63) and that believeing you may have life in His name."
One other point! You said this, "with us son of God denotes the new birth." No, with us the Son of God denotes Jesus is God. And the problem with the Pharisees and others is that Jesus was actually who He claimed to be but they like others did/do not believe Him.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto