Ask the Pastor Question;
In the Book of Mark, Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of Man, yet forbids the evil spirits to refer to Him as the Son of God. At that time, I understand why He didn't want people to know that He was the Son of God but why was the Son of Man a more acceptable or applicable title, if you will?
Here is a sticky question but, simply put, Son of Man is used by Jesus of himself in describing his humanity. The term is used 90 some times in Ezekiel as a reference to the humanity of the prophet. I believe that this was used by Jesus to reference his incarnation. As Phil 2 says, "He humbled himself and became a man..."
You are right in recognizing that (especially in Mark) Jesus was trying to keep his identity as the Son of God a secret lest there be some form of political uprising and the gospel of the kingdom would be turned into some shallow short-lived political thing.
What makes this tricky is that the term was used in Daniel as a messianic term (7:13-14). Yet because of the number of times that Ezekiel is called son of man it is more likely that the reference would be understood by Mark's audience as a term of humility. This then makes the title in Daniel a possible reference to the incarnation.