Jesus is not particularly influential in the Middle East, India or China. His influence overlaps areas where Christianity is prevalent.
Jesus does not fulfill Jewish prophesies of a messiah as there are still Jews who objectively have suffered more than most other religious groups (and often at the hands of Christians) to maintain that belief. Muslims also feel the same way. Whether or not someone fulfilled Jewish prophesies really should only concern those who believe Jaweh is the one and only god and the Jews were its chosen people (who happened to be the same tribe that worshipped it). Would be converts told that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of another religion except that religion doesn't believe he did and Islam doesn't think that either isn't exactly a 'wow' moment.
The historicity of the empty tomb is easily refutable.
There were no guards at the tomb in the Gospel of Mark. If the empty tomb teaching pre-dated Mark, Mark would have addressed the naturally occurring issue of grave robbery in his gospel. Instead, it is only after Mark makes his announcement of an empty tomb that we see a Matthew addressing the issue originally raised by Mark.
Why did the empty tomb suddenly became a very important detail that needed to be emphasized in all 4 canonical gospels when previously no one found it important enough to mention in writing?
Paul (in the earliest Christian account of the resurrection) claims the risen Christ appeared before him just as the risen Christ appeared before the disciples. But Paul did not witness a flesh and blood risen Christ. Paul gives us no reason to believe anybody witnesses a flesh and blood risen Christ. So Paul gives us no reason to believe the tomb was empty.
In the gospels, the disappearance of Christ's physical body needed to be explained with an ascension. Paul says nothing about an ascension. Paul has no reason to explain the disappearance of Christ's physical body because Paul's risen Christ has no physical body.
The gospel of John reveals the fact that a non-corporeal risen-Christ was among the earliest traditions of Christianity. The stone blocking the entrance to the tomb was rolled aside but, in John 20, the risen Christ could walk through walls. If the risen Christ could walk through walls then surely he could have walked through the stone blocking the entrance to the tomb.
The absence of an empty tomb tradition until approx. 70 AD also explains why no one really knows where Christ was buried. No one gave a thought to where the resurrection miracle had occurred until approx. 70 AD. That's because, prior to approx. 70 AD, the resurrection miracle was a purely spiritual event and did not involve a disappearing flesh and blood corpse
A non-corporeal resurrection was a part of Jewish tradition: "The view expressed in the [Dead Sea] Scrolls accord in general with those attributed by Josephus (Antiq. XVIII.i.5; War II.viii.11) to the Essenes, with whom, indeed, the Qumran sectaries may be identical...They held that although bodies were perishable, souls endured and mounted upward, the good to the realm of bliss, the evil to be consigned to a place of torment. This view is expressed also in Wisd. Sol. 3:1ff.; 5:16; Jub. 25; while something of the same kind--though without the reference to ultimate judgment--appears in Eccl. 12:7 ('the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God')
A few points:
1. 1 Corinthians 15 refers pretty clearly to the empty tomb and it is an early Pauline letter written about 20 years after the crucifixion.
2. Again, I would concede that if we were looking solely at Jewish prophesy, you could make arguments for or against him meeting the qualifications. However, if we make a cumulative case (including evidence based on the empty tomb and resurrection sightings), the fact that Jesus matches much of the descriptions of the Jewish Messiah is noteworthy.
3. Even in the Muslim world, Islam could only exist if Jesus came, as Islam blends elements of Christian practices at the time into its practice and claims that Jesus was the true way at the time. Furthermore, Christianity, even in areas where it is not widely practiced, had a huge impact on notions such as human rights and dignity, and the influence of the West (which is strongly influenced by Christianity) can be seen worldwide in a very strong sense. My point is that we would expect belief in Jesus rising from the dead to be widespread if Christianity were true, because the New Testament predicts that there would be believers in all the nations, and the very endurance of the faith is part of the case for it.
As far as the differences in Resurrection accounts, I believe they can be explained by the difference being actions when the soldiers were guarding the tomb and when they weren't after having fled(I understand not all Gospels record every detail, but I believe they can be harmonized): this is explained in further detail here:
https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/42-291/an-empty-tomb-with-an-angelic-explanationI have not investigated this detail as thoroughly, but I believe the basic case of the sightings of Jesus and empty tomb tradition from 1 Corinthians 15 still stands regardless, and makes a case in its own right, even with accounts that may seem a bit conflicting.
