Some of the early church fathers thought Michael was Jesus Christ .
Martin Luther thought Jesus and Michael were the same person, Ireanous
of the 2nd century thought that Jesus was Michael, Justin Martyer thought
that Jesus was an "angel".
Dan 12:1-2 shows Michael has authority over the "dead" waking up and in
John 5:28-29 Jesus has authority over the dead rising.
In Dan 12:1-2 it talks about 2 classes of dead rising up the good for and the
bad for judgement just like at John 5:28-29.
Michael is said to fight the Devil with "his" angels. Jesus is said to come to
do battle with "his" angels.( Why would the bible say that Michael and "his"
angels and not Michael and "the" angels if Michael had no authority over them?
Micahel is called the great "Prince" and Jesus is call the "Prince of Peace".
( If Michael was a lesser prince would not the bible somehow distinguish the two ?
The arguement that Michael refused to rebuke Satan over Moses body in Jude
'proves' the two cannot be the same has no substance since Jesus told the mother
that had two sons that sitting on the right hand of God is not for him to decide but
Jesus comes to reserrect to dead with an "archangel's" voice: why not a cherub's
voice or God's voice if Jesus was not an angel?
And that there folks is how the trinity came to being !
Much like the erroneous view of Jesus being Michael can come from taking isolated passages and misapplying them, from the very same methods the Trinity came.
Rule of thumb guys, its ok to play around and make up man-made doctrines and such, heck, its been going on for ages, just don't let it get to your heads, ok?