The Jerusalem church was such that it was not inherently susceptible to falling for such a lie. After all,
• They would not have seen sufficient reason to believe the lie. (for example, “Who are you and/or your source to teach us?”).1
• They would have seen compelling reason to refrain from believing the lie: It was flagrantly suspect.
Paul Althaus (Theology professor at Göttingen): “In Jerusalem, one could not think of the grave as empty without being certain, without there being testimony, that it had been found empty.” [Die Wahrheit des kirchlichen Osterglaubens (Bertelsmann, 1940), 23.] (As cited/translated by Dale Allison).
No early Christian would even try to spin such a lie. This is especially true of anyone lying to the Jerusalem church. After all, any would-be liars would be aware of the following:
• Such a lie would clearly be unacceptably late (E.g. “If that were true, we'd have heard about it long ago!”); this is accentuated by their straightforward awareness of the fact that Mary was a well-known member of their church.[Forthcoming]
• Such a lie would be enticingly falsifiable (E.g. “We'll get Mary's feedback before accepting this, much less endorsing it!”).1 After all, the Jerusalem church sought/lionized relevant eyewitness testimony[Forthcoming], and Mary and her feedback were overtly accessible to them[Forthcoming]
The Jerusalem church's belief was _actually _grounded in Mary's testimony. (After all, the Mk 16:1-8 report that “Mary saw Jesus's tomb empty” had already originated/formed from _within _the Jerusalem church[Forthcoming], specifically in c. AD 30[Forthcoming], and specifically by Mary Magdalene1). This is relevant because Mary's autobiographical report that she discovered Jesus's tomb empty was not a lie[Forthcoming].