On the contrary! There's plenty of evidence they did and none that they didn't. Although the strength of that evidence doesn't allow for a firm conclusion, it is stronger than no evidence at all, which is what the perpetual virgin claim has to support it.
Where is there any evidence that Mary had other children? NOWHERE are the "brothers of Jesus" mentioned as Mary's children. The language used does not clarify between cousins and blood brothers.
And it would seem strange that Jude would call himself a brother of James, who supposedly is a blood brother of Jesus according to you, but NOT a brother of Jesus...Your logic would make Jude and Jesus as blood brothers - yet, Jude never mentions such a relationship. Only with James. Think about it for a second. "Brother" has different meanings.
Regards Regards
"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."
The connection between Mary are brothers here is very strong. It is evidence that indicates a high probability that these are in fact Jesus' bros and Mary's sons here. This can not be dismisssed, and stands in the contradiction to the pertual virginity claim. This passage makes the claim highly doubtful.
John 7:3Jesus' brothers said to him, "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do.
"And it would seem strange that Jude would call himself a brother of James, who supposedly is a blood brother of Jesus according to you,"
I madeno such claim. The above passages absolutely do not contain bros, as in good buddies. The above passages came before that and it's more probable that the bros are bros, not cousins.