Deeje,
Saying that Michael Archangel is the commander of all angels is still not a valid reason for "only begotten," he's still a spirit being. The "only begotten" is a very special attributes for Jesus, and not for a chief angel. Think about that. You are trying to place Archangel Michael next to the Father, it should be Jesus and not Archangel Michael.
Names in the Bible denote a role in God's purpose. "Jesus" (the human son of Mary) did not exist before his human birth. His name was given to him as a human...the meaning of his name is in accord with God's purpose in connection with his role as redeemer of the human race.
Ye·shuʹaʽ or Yehoh·shuʹaʽ means “Jehovah Is Salvation”. Salvation came to mankind the day "Jesus Christ" died. His blood redeemed every human being that was covered by his sacrifice. (But not all are covered if they refuse to become a Christian disciple of God's son)
Jesus said that Many would identify as Christians in the day for his judgment but he would reject "many" who were not living up to ALL the things he taught. (Matthew 7:21-23) Just calling Jesus your "Lord" is not enough.
"Michael" means "Who Is Like God?" and reflects the character of the Commander in Chief of all the angelic forces. As God's "only begotten son" his role reveals that he is exactly like his Creator. He carries out the will of his Father, not his own, which flies in the face of him being an equal deity with his God.
It was also prophesied that Jesus would have the name "Immanuel" which means, "With Us Is God". Yet I don't recall Jesus ever being called "Immanuel" except in prophesy.
God was certainly "with" the ones whom Jesus gathered to himself as his disciples.
But Jesus also talks about another name that he is given upon his return to heaven.....
Revelation 3:12
“‘The one who conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out from it anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the New Jerusalem that descends out of heaven from my God, and my own new name."
He makes mention of his "God" four times in that verse and says he has a "new name"....but he does not reveal it.
In the scriptures God reveals his name and says that this one name is the one by which all generations would identify him..."forever". (Exodus 3:15) God does not have many names, (Psalm 83:18 ASV) but Jesus does.
See? you"re trying to force Archangel Michael--as the Saviour? Can an angel, a messenger of God, or a warring angel, a Saviour? Logically, it is obviously not consistent, and a contradiction. It is God's plan that His Son, Jesus Christ came here as a lamb to be slaughter. Therefore, being a God has no connection.
Recognizing the simple truth of the Bible's teachings does not require anything to be forced. Because Jesus is NOT GOD, he easily fits the roles that his Father assigned to him. It is only when you have the mindset that Jesus MUST BE GOD that you run into monumental obstacles.
Jesus was readily identified as a "servant" of his God and Father by his own apostles. (Acts of the Apostles 4:20)
They were in no doubt about the identity of their Messiah....he was "the son of the Living God" (Matthew 16:16)
The Father was their "one God" not their "Lord Jesus Christ". (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)
Jesus identified his Father as "the only true God". (John 17:3)
These are direct statements, so they need no explanation or 'tap dancing' to make a false doctrine fit in.
Before the foretold apostasy, there was no trinity in the teachings of Christ. There was no trinity in the Jewish religion at all....so as a Jew, Jesus never taught such a concept. It was introduced into the church hundreds of years after Jesus died. You can fight this...or you can acknowledge this simple truth. Only when you do can you comprehend the scope of God's purpose in connection with his "Holy Servant Jesus".