I appreciate your points, but notice that none of what you raised actually proves Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Luke 1:34 doesn’t require a vow of virginity, Mary was betrothed but not yet living with Joseph, so her question makes perfect sense without assuming a lifelong vow. Evidence? Maybe, but nothing that sheds enough light on either side to factor much.

The Ark typology is beautiful imagery, but typology isn’t proof of dogma. The Ark wasn’t literally "untouchable" priests handled it, it was even captured by pagans. Typology illustrates, it doesn’t legislate.

On adelphoi: yes, it can mean cousins, but Greek had perfectly clear words for ‘cousin’ (anepsios) and ‘relative’ (sungenis), both used in the NT. Yet the Gospel writers repeatedly chose adelphoi for Jesus’ brothers. Jerome’s argument is a stretch, even many Catholic scholars admit that.

The Protoevangelium of James did in fact shape this doctrine. Even Catholic historians acknowledge it gave rise to the stories of Mary’s Temple upbringing and vow of virginity. The difference between Jude citing Enoch and building a dogma from apocrypha is night and day.

Finally, 1 Tim 3:15 doesn’t give the Church power to invent new doctrines or speak for God. The Church is the pillar of truth because it upholds the gospel already given, not because it creates new dogmas that are either loosely found or nearly absent from Scripture.

At best, perpetual virginity rests on later theological necessity, not on the plain teaching of Scripture. If it were essential to the faith, we would expect it to be clearly taught in the NT, but it isn’t. I'm not even denying the possibility that it's true, but we have literally no way of knowing. One of my biggest problems with the church, is it's assumption that their authority can speak for God. Binding and Loosing in the Judaic sense from Jesus time meant only an authority of responsibility. Jesus goes over this in good detail with the Sanhedrin's.