Of course, that has to be the position of the other side. But this seems to me to be like the non-Catholic reading of the "I am the bread" discourse. If we come to the passages in question with the notion that the papists are wrong, we will come out of the passages with that notion unbruised.
The whole power of the "Here are all the places where 'rock' is used in the Bible," argument depends on a view of the Bible which is not self-evident.
And then, Elsie's list and comments are tendentious. I mean only that there's a little assuming the thing to be proved going on.) It does not necessarily follow from the evangelists referring to Simon as "Peter" before the Caesaria Philippi incident that he had been called Peter before then. And, (I did only skim so maybe I'm wrong here) I saw no account of how Simon son of Jonah is referred to in Scripture are Cephas - in Paul's writings and in the Gospel of John. This at least COULD be understood as vitiating the Petra/Petros argument, by suggesting that "Cephas" was what was said before they started writing stuff in Koine so "Petros" was not a word distinct form Petra but the stem petr- with a masculine ending on account of the guy-ness of Peter.
Etc.
With just a LITTLE effort; a person could make their OWN list!
And their OWN comments; too!
The bottom line is that if you take a stand for the light, you should be prepared to receive resistance from the darkness.
I think I understood that, already. LOL.