Porphyry's argument against Jesus' resurrection was based on the idea that the appearances were limited to a few women and other unknown individuals, while key authorities like Pilate, the high priest, and the Roman Senate, who would have been able to witness and verify the event, did not see him. This argument highlighted the perceived lack of credible witnesses to the resurrection and was part of his larger polemic against Christianity.
Porphyry base his claim on false premise that Jesus' resurrection was a zombie-like re-agitation where he continue on after being crucified, dead and partly bodily disintegrated. If re-livened, he is supposed to retain his experience and memory from before and thus it would be the most natural thing go and triumphantly show himself before those who took part in his suffering and killing. The truth is that Jesus was resurrected by God the Father by a way of reverting the whole ordeal and placing Jesus in another timeframe where he did not experience it and therefore can't even remember it. In other words he found himself awaken not in a tomb but in Gethsemane garden. Why would he go to show up before Pilate and Sanhedrin if he did not remmember/experience having met them in the first place and later being crucified? What would he tell them on such occasion? That "he had to be crucified for the scriptures to fulfil"? These things he told only to disciples as part of the overall teaching cycle. Please notice that Jesus after resurrection never talks about actual crucifixion or death-like experiences but only that this "must have happened". That's all. Historically he was crucified and died, and we have witnesses for it, but in objective reality if you ask anybody today in 2025, the answer is clear: neither he was crucified, nor died, and for the witnesses it only appeared so to them. Nobody says that witnesses are liars, but their accounts no longer match objective reality after the resurrection took place.