In AD 30, the Jerusalem church was saying that Jesus's tomb was empty. This is relevant because that tomb was where they expected Jesus's corpse to be.
The 1 Corinthians 15 creed (saying Jesus “buried” and then “raised” ) was affirmed, and likely even formed, by the Jerusalem church.[Forthcoming] This is relevant because, the language of the creed implies that Jesus's body went missing from its grave.
In c. AD. 30, The Jerusalem Church was not preserving/venerating any alleged location of Jesus's bones (as a hero/saint).1
But so what, couldn't it simply be that…
• …they didn't care to venerate the graves of their buried saints?”2, 3
• …they felt Jesus's grave-site was too unpleasant to venerate?”4, 5
• …they couldn't find Jesus's grave?”6
Regarding whether Jesus's body was gone, the Jerusalem church's public stance in AD 30 and AD 70 matched.1 This is relevant because, in AD 70, the public stance of the Jerusalem church was that Jesus's tomb was empty.2
Regarding whether Jesus's tomb was empty, the AD 30 Jerusalem church's public stance matched the truth.1 This is relevant because the truth of the matter is that Jesus's tomb was empty
In AD 30, the Jerusalem church was saying that Jesus eschatologically resurrected.[Forthcoming] This is relevant because one cannot believe that Jesus resurrected and simultaneously believe his body lay dead where it was left.
But wait, couldn't it simply be that, for early Christians, “resurrection” meant non-physical resurrection?[Forthcoming]
The main argument here, as articulated by, Uta Ranke-Heinemann (NT Scholar, Hist. of Rel. Chair at Essen U.) is: “If Paul had ever heard of the empty tomb, he would have never passed over it in silence. Since he gathers together and cites all evidence for Jesus' resurrection that has been handed down to him (1 Corinthians 15), he certainly would have found the empty tomb worth mentioning.”1
But this argument is very confused.[Forthcoming]