If you'd only posted Scripture that would be true. But you posted your interpretation along with it and it is your interpretation that is in "light of your doctrine".
I know many Protestants find this surprising, but your interpretation of Scripture is not the same as Scripture.
I didnt post my interpretation, I posted simple grammer rules and simple methods of diagrammng sentences.
It is plain to see if you just look and read it for its face value.
name ONE instance in Scripture where ROCK is used to describe a human.
Even in Matthew,
PETER is a STONE, not a rock!
For EACH instance in Scripture where ROCK is used in a spiritual context,
it is ALWAYS connected to WHO GOD IS,
NOT a human.
Not once, not ever.
Go back to Deuteronomy, that is where the references begin.
Follow what the BIBLE SAYS, not what you want it to say!
In order to defend the RCC doctine on this, you have to dismiss the entire Bible to make the point that Peter is THE ROCK
Whereas if you follow the BIBLE and the pattern God laid out centuries before in Scripture, THE ROCK is ALWAYS God and who GOD is, not a man, never a man, never will be a man.