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, • …the Jerusalem church is famously more informed than any would-be informer.1
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, specifically in c. AD 30, and specifically by Mary Magdalene1). This is relevant because Mary's autobiographical report that she discovered Jesus's tomb empty was not a lie.