He could vanish when he willed

Let us see how Celsus’s Jew puts it: “In any case, to display his divinity he ought at least to have done this much: to vanish from the stake at once.” This too seems to me like the argument of those who set themselves against providence, who sketch for themselves things other than what exists, and say, “It would have been better if the world were as we have sketched it.” Where what they sketch is possible, they are shown to be making the world worse, so far as it lies with them and their sketch; and where they seem to be painting something not worse than what exists, they are shown to want what is impossible by nature. So either way they are ridiculous.

Here too, then, that it was not impossible for him, as one of a more divine nature, to become invisible whenever he wished, is clear in itself. It is plain also from what is written about him, to anyone except those who accept some of the writings in order to attack the word, and think others are fictions. Now it is written in the Gospel according to Luke that after the resurrection Jesus “took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it” to Simon and Cleopas; and when they had taken the bread, “their eyes were opened, and they recognised him; and he vanished from their sight” (Luke 24:30–31).