Hello Patrick,
Regarding this issue, I think this article from BioLogos provides a very solid overview:
Did Death Occur Before the Fall?
That said, I also have a more personal theory on the subject—one that involves the sin of the angels. I’ve long suspected that the fall of Satan and the angels who followed him had profound consequences for creation itself. But again, this is just a personal reflection, not a formal doctrine.
Actually, in recent years there have been several works that are far more open to spiritualist conclusions than in the past. Two books I would immediately recommend are Irreducible Mind Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century : Kelly, Edward F., Kelly, Emily Williams, Crabtree, Adam, Gauld, Alan, Grosso, Michael: Amazon.it: Books and The Spiritual Brain. The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul : Beauregard, Mario, O'Leary, Denyse: Amazon.it: Books
I’d also suggest this: Amazon.com
Reading these books, you’ll find that the supposed “evidence” for consciousness being entirely produced by the brain is far less conclusive than often claimed. In fact, there’s a growing body of evidence pointing in a very different direction. What makes this particularly noteworthy is that these works are written by scientists and neurologists—not by theologians or philosophers with an agenda.
As for the Resurrection of Jesus, I wrote about this just yesterday Primary and Secondary Causes, God through (not vs) Nature, and Gaps are scraps. (Aristotle and Aquinas and Cosmological arguments) - #209 by 1Cor15.54 , but to summarize: the behavior of the disciples is completely inconsistent if you compare how they acted at the time of the crucifixion with what they did afterward, and that’s because something happened — something powerful enough to radically transform them. And the overwhelming majority of scholars—regardless of belief—agree that the disciples had powerful experiences that truly convinced them Jesus had truly risen from the dead. Also the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 is extremely early, and there’s no serious doubt that it traces directly back to apostolic eyewitnesses. The Evidential Value of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 to the Case for the Resurrection - Jonathan McLatchie | Writer, Speaker, Scholar
Now, historians can’t formally conclude that “Jesus rose from the dead,” because the academic method is constrained by methodological naturalism, like I said before, which excludes any supernatural explanation by default. But once you set aside the methodological barrier that rules out the supernatural by default, the evidence for the Resurrection becomes remarkably compelling. It still requires a leap of faith, yes—but there are very strong reasons to make that leap.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that it takes more faith to believe that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead than to believe that He did—because what happened after the crucifixion demands far too many ad hoc explanations to make sense within a purely naturalistic framework. It leaves far too many unresolved questions and historical dead ends. The sheer transformation of the disciples, the rapid emergence of resurrection belief, and the explosive growth of the early Church all point to something extraordinary—something that natural causes alone fail to fully account for.
Edit: I’ve updated this post after realizing I had accidentally repeated two paragraphs.