Mishnah Eduyot 8:6 says that sacrifices can be made on the Temple Mount even without a Temple.
Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard that we may sacrifice even without the Temple and eat the holy sacrifices even though there are no curtains, and [eat] the regular sacrifices and second tithes even though there is no wall [surrounding Jerusalem] because the first sanctification sanctified [the area] for its time and for the time to come.
And I recall reading something in rabbinic literature about sacrifices being made on an altar on the Temple Mount after 70 CE, but the only thing I can find at the moment is this:
Contrary to what many believe, Jews did not abandon the Temple Mount after the temple's actual destruction in 70 C.E. There is even evidence that sacrifices continued for some time on a surviving altar.
So much for my suspicion that even "radical" Jews are at least a little uncomfortable with the idea of offering sacrifices again.
The difference between the above and what I am suggesting in this thread, of course, is that I think it's okay to sacrifice anywhere and not just on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and it would have the advantage of not upsetting anyone.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
"The 'confusing' aspect is that - apparently - other temples continued to be used even when the 1st and 2nd temple in Jerusalem were standing."
Well, it's not confusing (at least in regards the first Jerusalem Temple) when you consider that the centralization of the sacrificial cult to one place is only mentioned in Deuteronomy and that it was not known until the time of Josiah. As 2 Kings 23:22-23 says:
Neither in the days of the judges who led Israel nor in the days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah had any such Passover been observed. But in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, this Passover was celebrated to the Lord in Jerusalem.
BDJ also wrote:
"The focus on the exclusivity of the Jerusalem is ascribed to the Deutoronomist authors in the Documentary Hypothesis. Hence, you will find 'other' temples in writings of other authors n the OT."
But the references to the Shiloh Temple are in the Deuteronomist History (e.g., 1 Sam 1, which I linked to above). I am persuaded by Friedman's idea that the DH was written by Jeremiah (and/or his scribe Baruch), and Jer. 7:12 also mentions the Shiloh Temple in a positive light. And I don't recall all the particulars of the argument offhand, but IIRC, Friedman sees a connection between the priests of the Northern Kingdom and the E and D sources, and this could explain the positive references to the Shiloh Temple in the DH.
1 Sam 1 deals with a time prior to the construction of the Temple by Salomon. So I think your 'But the references...." doesn't clash with Deuteronomistic prevalence of the temple in Jerusalem.
Is the Temple Institute ok with building along side the muslin shrines? I don't think the Temple Mount Faithful are. I can't remember who believes what anymore.
I gather not. Though the above article says, "The Temple Institute is advancing the 2,000 year old dream of a Temple in Jerusalem in a way that does not disturb Muslim observance on the Temple Mount," "advancing the 2,000 year old dream of a Temple" is different from actually building it, and they make it clear where they think it should be located on their website.
Geo-politically, the Temple Mount has to be cleared of the Dome of the Rock and the mosques which are presently located upon it before the physical rebuilding of the Holy Temple can begin.
I think it would be better (and in keeping with other temples in the OT and the Temple of Onias in Egypt) to build a temple or temples (or even the tabernacle) somewhere else. Since I think the "place God will choose to put his name" is wherever the ark is, I think if the Temple Institute can rebuild the altar, the breastplate of stones and other garments and vessels then they can rebuild the ark and put it anywhere.
But I gather that they believe they know where the old ark is and that some day it will be retrieved:
This location is recorded in our sources, and today, there are those who know exactly where this chamber is. And we know that the ark is still there, undisturbed, and waiting for the day when it will be revealed.
What about the Temole Mount Faithful? Seems like they think the Dome of the Rock is right on the Holy of Holies, right? I don't think they would want to share it go anywhere else?
Not to diminish the importance of Jerusalem (it was the seat of the Davidic dynasty, the site of two temples, and a focus of Judaism ever after), but I've been getting into Shiloh more lately because it was first, and I don't understand why it is not as equally revered as Jerusalem or see why a temple couldn't rebuilt there. I suppose it has something to do with Jerusalem being in the southern kingdom of Judah and Shiloh being in the northern kingdom of Israel, but maybe it's time to broaden the scope, and it doesn't look like it would upset anyone to build a temple in Shiloh again. And the Torah does not mention Jerusalem, only "the place the Lord will choose to put His name," and if it was once in Shiloh (Jer. 7:12) then it could be there again.
At some point late in its residency in Shilo, the Mishkan was given a more permanent structure, and it is believed that the stone foundation for the Mishkan can be seen at Tel Shilo -an archeological dig near the city- still today ... and visitors can actually stand on the spot where it is believed that the Mishkan once stood.