And you are limiting yourself from seeing the plain meaning by trying to determine the author's intentions, instead of what he recorded. In addition, I reject the "PRDS" school of thought just as I reject the "JEDP" theory on torah authorship.
To suggest that the New Testament is the result of "multiple translations" and "Composition by commitee" suggests a lack of research into historical manuscript evidence for the Greek text we have today. I would also suggest that if we can't follow Sensus Plenior, then no one can arrive at an understanding of truth, for the sords don't mean what they say, and our most basic forms of communication - from thoughts to words to sentences to thoughts - is meaningless.
I also follow the motto "A Text taken out of Context is a Pretext". A simple, clean, literal hermeneutic requires literal reading within the context of the immediate text, a s well as the entirety of the book. This then has to be compared to other passeges on the same topic, to arrive at a sound doctrine. However, if we each allegorize and spiritualize by our own standards and imaginations, truth cannot exist in a knowable context. Your line of thinking leads to gnosticism (secret knowledge), a heresy fought ferociously by John in his 1st epistle, chapter 4, as well as by Paul in Galatians 1.
I find it telling that you first accuse me of being an Origenist and now a Gnostic.
Origen was perhaps the greatest foe of the Gnostics, and his refutation of them was complete, as is my admiration for his reasoning in that refutation.
(Actually, my REAL hero is William Blake.)