He is risen!

You spelled it wrong: He iz rizen!

Pretty sure he's in an ossuary somewhere in Israel.

That seems eminently reasonable.

Why so? My guess is that there is nothing in "heaven" that corresponds to "right at this very moment in time, here in the physical universe".

But then again, it may be that his physical body is "in heaven" in some way. There certainly have been some theologians who hold to such a position. I don't know for sure, but I admit that I tend to doubt it. In any case, I certainly don't see how that could be demonstrated to be a logical necessity.

If there is no "now" in "heaven", what becomes of your question?

Maybe he's sometimes a particle and sometimes a wave. I saw this on a science show. Some kind of microscopic particle
could be measured one way after the fact and behaved as a particle, but under observation it behaved as a wave. Somehow
observing it made it change. Anywho this particle could actually be in two places at the same time!

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-atoms.html

Here's the link. On the show they explained it really in depth. It must be fun being a scientist!

And we are no where near the first people to have this discussion.

1 Corinthians 15:1-28 NKJV NASB

All particles are also waves, it's a central part of quantum physics. But it has nothing to do with this.

Revelations does seem to suggest very strongly that heaven undergoes changes, which is difficult if it doesn't have time. That doesn't mean there's a corresponding time for our now, precisely, but both for heaven and us there most likely is an after the ascension of Christ, opposed to a before.

Jesus' body has entered the 23rd form of matter. There's gas, liquid, solid, plasma, then all this shit we don't understand, then Jesus.

WTF? Maybe Jesus had vast knowledge and complete mastery of sub-atomic particles.
Thus turning water into wine, walking on water, passing right through rocks blocking his way, etc.

So, he was Dr. Manhattan.

That . . . would explain much.

Oh now come on! How far are we going to take this "selfie" fad?

I'd swear he's doing "Blue Steel" for the camera.

Peeps are good, but only after the proper time of ripeni8ng outside of the package. It is just too much temptation to eat the peeps before their time, so they never get ripe. Of course, when I do have them I eat them by the sleeve. Blood sugar levels beware.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
One storybook isn't extraordinary evidence.
If a bunch of zombies started running around, that shit would be in hundreds of diaries, drawn on vases, joked about in graffiti, it'd be a big deal.
Like Pompeii.
Everyone knew about that shit.
Straw-Dawkins missed that one, I don't suppose real-Dawkins would.
Think he wrote a whole chapter on the topic.
Why won't Christians just actually read "The God Delusion", instead of getting it second hand in distorted snippets?
Think you'll burst into flames or something?

...shit, that's it, isn't it?

Revelation (please, Packard, I am used to uneducated people calling it "Revelations", but do you have to do it, too?) is the least literal book of the Bible. Using it to attempt to show what "heaven" is like is a more than hazardous undertaking.

Shit, you'd better tell all the "Left Behind", fans out there.

I am sure I agree with you more than you realize on how ridiculous many of the interpretations of Revelation are among fundamentalists...

(I'll file that under "Did anyone notice my deliberate mistake?".)
Ok, so how about God first ruing that he made men, and then ruing that he destroyed them, in the story of the flood, plus all the other times that he changed his mind, often after one of his prophets lawyered him? A change of mind is a change and implies time, doesn't it?

^ Only if it can be demonstrated that those are not anthropomorphisms. But everything about the narrative suggests that they are indeed anthropomorphisms.

I am not a literalist, as I'm sure you know, so you are not likely to "entrap" me by referring to a literal interpretation, any more than you would entrap an astronomer into admitting that he knows nothing about how the solar system works because he referred to a "sunrise".

Here's something I thought about the othe day when I was stuck in traffic.
Imagine Hitler on Judgement Day:
"well Adolf, I don't think this will comes as a surprise when I tell you where you are going.
For starters you killed 6 million Jews. What have you got to say for yourself?"

"Well I admit that sounds pretty bad - maybe even worse than....I don't know.....FLOODING THE ENTIRE PLANET?"

That would be the difference between a gardener weeding his plot and a gopher digging it all up, actually.

Human beings are not weeds to be dispensed with, and I object to any philosophy that characterises them as such, even moreso if it also claims to be a bastion of morality.

It's actually the analogy Nazis used in children's books in their schools.

I am not trying to entrap anyone here. Remember, to me the whole text is simply false. I'm just fascinated by people's readings of it, and enjoy hearing more about that.

In that spirit: so far we have descriptions that ascribe temporality to heaven, and the fact that one part of creation, ours, has it. Neither proves anything about heaven, but what reason is there to assume it doesn't know time, if the indications we have either point to it having time, or are inconclusive?