How would a potential Third Temple be constructed?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

This question of the mount would only be a problem if some apocalyptic nutties take power in US or in Israel or in Pakistan, or maybe in Saudi Arabia. That's the question basically.

As long as true apocalyptic nutties have nobody in power or nobody to have a significant influence on the power of the states above, it's ok.

For this to happen, it would be needed that populations of these states become enough crazy to listen such people. Given we already saw a very civilized people turning itself to crazy things (Germans trusting Nazis), this is still more basically the question.

I don't think so much Christians are interested in that question of the temple, I tend to think they could be more interested in the fact that there are possibilities that the Ark could be underground in that mount.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

To reiterate--I never said some early Christians never believed the temple would not be rebuilt, nor that most prophecies were yet to be fulfilled. I just denied that they were proto-dispensationalists, and none of your arguments disprove that, for you are arguing against something I never said.

Then, I think you've got the wrong car, McFly, for this thread deals with the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple.

But, since you've pulled us off topic...name a single non-Judadizing Christian denomination that doesn't believe in dispensation. 

If you believe that the new covenant did away with the dietary laws of unclean meat, then you are, by definition, a dispensationalist.

[Bono]

To reiterate--I never said some early Christians never believed the temple would not be rebuilt, nor that most prophecies were yet to be fulfilled. I just denied that they were proto-dispensationalists, and none of your arguments disprove that, for you are arguing against something I never said.

Then, I think you've got the wrong car, McFly, for this thread deals with the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple.

But, since you've pulled us off topic...name a single non-Judadizing Christian denomination that doesn't believe in dispensation. 

If you believe that the new covenant did away with the dietary laws of unclean meat, then you are, by definition, a dispensationalist.

Massive red herring. Believing in different dispensations is not the same as believing in the system known as dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is an overarching hermeneutical grid with which to understand scripture. When it comes do dispensations, the main difference about how dispensationalism and covenant theology look at them is that dispensationalism tends to emphasize the discontinuity, and covenant theology tends to emphasize the continuity and see different 'dispensations' as simply different ways of administering the same covenant of grace.

If you care to learn more (which I know you don't, but I'll say it anyway, you can look at this simple comparison chart.

You are more of a Progressive Dispensationalist, though, so you may find that not everything in that chart's description of dispensationalism applies to yet. I just don't know any one chrd comparing prog dispensationalism to covenant theology.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Massive red herring. Believing in different dispensations is not the same as believing in the system known as dispensationalism.

Huh?!  Was that a typo?  Dispensationalism isn’t the belief in different dispensations?

----

Dispensationalism is an overarching hermeneutical grid with which to understand scripture. When it comes do dispensations, the main difference about how dispensationalism and covenant theology look at them is that dispensationalism tends to emphasize the discontinuity, and covenant theology tends to emphasize the continuity and see different 'dispensations' as simply different ways of administering the same covenant of grace.

If you care to learn more (which I know you don't, but I'll say it anyway, you can look at this simple comparison chart.

dude, that whole chart seems to be put in terms of a whole variety of Calvinists.  I don't want to look up multilayered definitions.  So, let me cut through all the clutter and state what aspects of “Dispensational Theology”, based on that chart, I agree or disagree with:

“Dispensational Theology”:

1)  “May be Arminian or modified Calvinist. Almost never five-point Calvinist.”  (I cannot enumerate Calvinism, and I have no idea what “Arminian” means.  So point number one goes right over my head.)

2) “Usually does NOT accept the idea of the Analogy of Faith” - allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture”  (jmfcst totally disagrees, for jmfcst ALWAYS uses scripture to interpret scripture – one jmfcst strike against DT)

3) “'Israel' always means the literal, physical descendants of Jacob.” (jmfcst totally disagrees, Rom 9:6 “Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” is a point-blank reference to BOTH physical and spiritual Israel – two jmfcst strikes against DT)

4) “Israel of God' in Galatians 6:16 means physical Israel alone.” . (jmfcst totally disagrees, though I don’t see the significance of this verse in the context of the current discussion – three jmfcst strikes against DT)

5) “The Church was not prophesied as such in the OT but was a "mystery", hidden until the NT.” . (jmfcst totally disagrees, Joseph saving the Gentiles is one example of the Church being prophesied in the OT – four jmfcst strikes against DT)

6) “All OT prophecies for 'Israel' are for the physical nation of Israel, not the Church.” (I have not reviewed every OT prophecy with the word “Israel” in it to see if it passes this test, nor does it matter it me since I believe many of the blessings of physical Israel are passed along to spiritual Israel – the Church)

7) “God's main purpose in history is national physical Israel.” (huh?  jmfcst totally disagrees – five jmfcst strikes against DT )

8 ) “The Church is a parenthesis in God's program for the ages.” (jmfcst totally disagrees – six jmfcst strikes against DT )

9) “The main heir to Abraham's covenant was Isaac and literal Israel.” (jmfcst totally disagrees – seven jmfcst strikes against DT )

Need I continue? How many years have you attempted to label me as DT, yet I believe almost totally the opposite as DT.  As I stated before:

every attempt to categorize my beliefs will flop.  No one can take the beliefs or Calvin or Luther or Darby or even my pastor and use them as a template in an attempt to label and dismiss my beliefs.  I’m not going to fit neatly into any box because I didn’t get my beliefs from any box other than my own interpretation of the bible.

And that is what I have an issue with – labeling for the purpose of dismissing, especially when the label doesn’t fit.