The comparing of constant change vs. the unchanging, of mundane vs. transcendent, of temporal vs. eternal, is a typical contrast in western philosophies and religions. Two concepts are abstracted and set at odds with each other.
At the very least, a more typically eastern view would ask whether anything changes constantly, or if the illusion of change is created in part by perception bias; we notice change, we fail to notice nonchange, so we see change everywhere, when change is rare and always flows from the deeper nature of the thing
There are as many Buddhist approaches to time as there are Buddhists. Probably more, since holding more than one approach to any given subject "at a time" is a Buddhist hallmark.
My own view points are simple.
Is time real? Yes.
Is it an Illusion? Yes.
Is it more real than other things that we perceive? No.
Is it more illusory than other things that we perceive? No.
Does it exist without perception or measurement? As much as we do but no more.
Time (as a concept) is a tool, a useful tool for doing useful things and thinking useful thoughts.
Change happens, but so does nonchange, and if time is to have any meaning it must incorporate both phenomena without prejudice.
Time as a REAL THING THAT IS SO REAL THAT IT IS ITS OWN THING quacks like a duck, and everyone knows that ducks are illusions.