The Temple is still a concern for some Orthodox and otherwise old-school Jews, but most modern Jews have little interest in the building of a third Temple and the reintroduction of the Temple hereditary priesthood and of sacrifices. We have long since moved beyond the need for such things;
Man gets to define the "need" for such things? Does man also get to decide that the prophecies of Ezekiel and Zechariah that describe a clearly later time in the future where Sacrifices are offered as purely metaphorical?
the Torah is our "portable Temple,"
Was the Torah a "Portable Temple" at the time of the Temples? What does that even mean? The extremely complicated Temple structure and ritual methods are now reduced to reading the Law which they did back in the day of Temple as well?
and we are taught by learned laymen, or "rabbis," and not by hereditary priests. Judaism is today characterized by study and learning, and not by ritual;
Not by ritual? I'd say giving away my Chametz and not eating bread all last week was definitely part of a ritual. Not to mention fasting on Yom Kippur. Obeying Sabbath is a ritual. It seems if anything many modern "Rabbinicists" are very Cherry picky on which rituals they want to believe are everlasting and which ones can be adapted and reformed into something else, especially at the expense of what the prophets say.
indeed the "ritual" of today consists largely of reading from the Torah,
I don't see how reading the Law is in any way a Law-defined "ritual", and has no real application to the word "Ritual". If one regularly reads a Torah portion on a certain day, that may be their individual "ritual" but it is nowhere ordained for certain parts to be read on certain days.
and indeed reading aloud the passages about the actual rituals of the past.
So again, why do we still perform certain scripturally-mandated rituals like Passover but not others?
We have had no need to go farther for two thousand years.
Please expound on this whole "need" thing, and who gets to define what the "need" was.
As my own rabbi once put it, "Who wants a holy slaughterhouse in the middle of downtown Jerusalem?"
Apparently G-d did for a thousand years or so. Why the destruction of the 2nd temple is any different than the destruction of the 1st is yet to be explained, especially in light of the passages that clearly define a later time where the Temple is standing again and Bulls are being offered and Egyptians are going up to Israel for Succoth.
Further, a much more practical problem involved in building a third Temple is the necessary and unavoidable demolition of two (2) Muslim sacred sites, the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which now occupy the site of the ancient Temple
They have no problem obliterating and desecrating and taking over Jewish holy sites, apparently they get a free card to do so, for some reason.
Whatever ritual daydreams some Jews might have regarding a third Temple aren't worth fulfilling at the cost of precipitating worldwide outrage on the part of even moderate Muslims and the immense bloodshed of the no doubt catastrophic war which would ensue.
Was it worth fighting against the Selucid Greeks to get back the second one? Do you think worldwide outrage means anything to G-d?
Very many modern Jews regard the idea of a third Temple as more than a little silly;
I suppose they also think the passages that describe a Temple standing in the day that the Egyptians go to celebrate Succoth as silly too.
and the idea that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah is simply out of court,
As for being a Trinitarian Lawless Christian as most Christianity is represented by, I certainly agree. As for Yashua as the prophecied Moshiach in the original concept, not at all, it's completely in court and makes complete sense, despite what the Talmudists may have said. Apparently it's not out of court to be a Reform or Reconstructionist Jew and eat ham, that's no problem. You can eat all the bacon you want and not be "out of court", you can avoid the Holy Days, you can break virtually all the commandments, but if you believe Jesus was Moshiach, all hell breaks loose. Many of the Messianic interpretations are not very clear, they could be talking about a 2000 year process. The ingathering of the Jews has begun, as prophecied. Was Akiva, "Father of the Talmud", out of court for picking Bar Kokhba as the Moshiach?
for reasons which have been posted here many times.
I don't think there's been a good discussion of why Jesus was or wasn't fitting of the Moshiach requirements on this board for a long while.
We haven't thought that worth debating for a couple of millennia, either.
Probably due to the bad misrepresentations and misinterpretations on both sides of the argument and a lack of a solid means to debate the exacts in an honest setting over the years.