Wrong. "Petros" is a primary word.
I need to see the site you lifted that screen print off. It's not the Thayer's I can find.
Seems you weren't looking very hard: Source
What we have said is that Petros is a MOVABLE rock.
And the Thayer's excerpt I've copied in speaks of "unyielding, and so resembling a rock." It appears that "petros" and "petra" can be essentially the male/female versions of the same concept. In the NT, when a small stone is referenced, the word used is "lithos." (e.g., 1 Pet. 2:8 "And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence . . ")
Obviously you haven't been reading our posts on the subject. At least I hope that's the reason you post that comment.
Read carefully. Both the citations I gave, for example:
Though in the past some authorities have considered that the term rock refers to Jesus himself or to Peter's faith, the consensus of the great majority of scholars today is that the most obvious and traditional understanding should be construed, namely, that rock refers to the person of Peter.and my comment both refer to "Bible scholars." You here are not Bible scholars. The opinions of bush-leaguers I'm excluding from that group?
Got it now?
We are told who that πέτρᾳ (petra) is.
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock (petra) was Christ.
That is from the Holy Spirit through Paul. If you want to argue with the Holy Spirit you go right ahead. I will not.
To the Sanhedrin, the Apostle Peter (and most of the others) were themselves very much with what equates with bush leaguers today.
Stick with the subject matter. Your own sneering expressions of your own opinions of others here are not welcome, as those things are just so much flame-baiting distraction.