Is the messiah supposed to be a (one) person?

[Jude86]

Early Messianic literature written before or during the time of Jesus (but before his Jewish followers believed he was the Messiah) there were different groups of Jews who believed different things. One of these groups, a particularly apocalyptic one, write about there being two Messiahs--a Messiah of David who was believed to be a more war-like Messiah who was going to restore Israel and drive out the invaders and at last rule over all the Earth. There was also a Messiah of Aaron--who was a more priestly Messiah from the tribe of Levi.

To quote an article on this latter Messiah:

In one of the oldest founding documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, The Community Rule, the community is expecting the coming of a prophet they called the Teacher, but also the “Messiahs of Aaron and Israel.” They imagined a future in which the Priest Messiah would preside over a “Messianic banquet,” with the King Messiah of Israel, whom they call the “Prince of the congregation,” or the “Branch of David,” as his companion. There are many references in the Dead Sea Scrolls to their fervent expectation that these two Messiahs would appear. As important as the “Branch of David” was to be, they nonetheless had the most extravagant hopes for the coming priest. In a text called the Testament of Levi we read the following:

The Dead Sea Scroll community waited a long time for the fulfillment of these central expectations. They had retreated to the Judean desert sometime in the 2nd century BC in response to the prophetic Voice they heard through the prophecies of Isaiah, Daniel, and Malachi. They became convinced that “this was the time” of the preparation of “the Way.” They were the community of the “Last Days” responding to Isaiah’s call to prepare the Way in the desert (Isaiah 40:3). Sometime in the 1st century BCE an influential figure arose among them who had great spiritual and interpretive gifts. They refer to him in the Scrolls as the “Teacher of Righteousness.”

We don’t know his name but many events of his life, and even some of his writings, are preserved in the Scrolls. The community saw him as a type of “Prophet like Moses” who had called them into a “new covenant.” They viewed themselves as a remnant group of faithful Israelites who had turned from their sins and separated themselves from the ungodly society around them. They considered the religious establishment of their day, whether Pharisee or Sadducee, to be hopelessly corrupt and compromised. They lived by the strictest interpretation of the laws of the Torah and firmly believed they were living in the “last days.” They believed that their Teacher had given them the definitive inspired interpretation of all the secrets of their prophetic writings.

So, what does this leave us with? It's very odd from a Christian standpoint to read this because, even as a Catholic, I can see that the way in which the Gospels and the Church (and indeed, most of Christianity--not just Catholicism) describe Jesus with the constant references to Jesus as "our Heavenly hight priest in the line of Melchizedek," the concept of "the Messiah of Aaron" is more fitting and yet the Gospels insist that Jesus is of the line of David. To reconcile this with the fact that Jesus wasn't at all warlike and didn't restore Israel and didn't conquer the world. To get around this glaring aspect, there came to be a proliferation of Christian apocalyptic literature that insisted that Jesus was going to return in a more warlike manner and subdue the Earth.

Do I as a Catholic have doubts that Jesus was the Messiah? Sure. I but I just have hope that in my path, as I continue to try to do the right thing, that if I'm found to have made a mistake in my Catholic beliefs that HaShem will be forgiving. If nothing else, I rest comfortably with the fact that both Jews and Christians believe in the same God. So, take comfort in that if nothing else.

Works cited:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/waiting-f..._b_7454860