I believe you missed the point Light. "I say you are gods" that is to show them that calling himself god is from the scripture, just like all holy men of Israel were called sons of god. This is logic, trying to go around what he said is going in circles.
The defense is basic to understand:
1) Why do you say I am blashpemis when I call myself god
2) is it not true that you are called gods
this simply implicates he is no different Because he said "do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, `You are blaspheming,' because I said, `I am the Son of God'? "
This is clearly to state that since he called himself god and they can be called god then it is fine for him to call himself god since he is a holy man of god. it's that simple
He only showed them that he deserves the title because he was sent by God just like any other prophet? WHY? Becasue they are called gods also.
How is he to be perceived as a prophet also in his defense?
He said that he is doing the works of God ( miracles ) like all other prophets. He didn't say he was doing those works by himself, they were only done by the help of the father as indicated in many other passages. So basically his defense followed this :
1) you call you holy men gods and I am holy also
2) those holy men who had miracles in the name of god, so I had miracles of the name of God.
HOW AM I THEN BLASHPEMING? This is how he reasoned with them.
It's funny how they turn this as a proof of jesus calling himself God when all he was doing is defending himself against them calling him blashpemis.
When Jesus was asked :" Are you the son of God " what was his response ? "YOU SAY SO" ===> YOU CALLED ME SO I DIDN'T
It's still funny cuz in other gospel he says " YES I AM"
and also
"The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son"
Add to that
"You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one"
How can you just not see this I don't understand