[zeek]

What I strongly disagree with is the solution. I think it is completely unworkable to say that "things not intended to be allegorized should not be allegorized".

I agree and made the same argument below.

Also, to quote OBW, you should not say something is there in the word that isn't there. I find nothing in the word that says we should "limit" our allegorizing.

True

Now if you want to use Paul's limited use of this as an example to imitate I can understand that and appreciate that. But you are not basing your teaching on Paul's teaching, only on what you perceive to be his example which is based on very limited data (I expect that the letters of Paul are no more representative of his speaking and growth in life as anyone else's would be).

I think Paul allegorized extensively, moreso if one considers typology to be a kind of allegory as I do.

I think the key principle was provided by Peter, no verse is of its own interpretation.

I don't know what that means.