In the text of the Bhagavadgita the supreme lord Krishna reveals himself to the human Prince Arjuna. At first glance it would appear that Krishna is a personified god. But several places in the text Krishna explains that he is unborn and unmanifested, not personified.
The time and place of this encounter is a battlefield, on the verge of battle. Historians have tried to place this incident in history, but none have succeeded. By all indications the events take place outside of time, in mythic time.
A contemporary Krishna devotee, Srila Phrabupada (not sure of the spelling here) also explains Krishna. The dialogue between him and a western devotee named Bob Cohen can be found in the book "timeless wisdom", published by an organization dedicated to Krishna consciousness. From this dialogue it also appears that Krishna is not personified.
For some reason I am under the impression that this text (the Bhagavadgita) is untainted by political agenda, and therefore a better source to understanding the ancient people's traditions of god than any of the abrahamic religions.
That is all pretty silly. If Krishna were "unmanifested," how did "he" tell anyone anything? I see no difference between this fairy tale and any other religious fairy tale which describes contact with a personified god. Basically, all you have to distinguish this from any other account of a personified god is that Krishna is basically saying: "I'm not really here." I frankly cannot understand how you can claim that a "god" who has a name and a gender is not personified.
I do not for a moment agree that there is any substantive "political agenda" to be found in the Torah, the christian "Bible" or the Quran. Just as is the case with the Hindus, the religion is co-opted for political reasons. Allow me to say, without rancor or any intent to offend, that you have a rather naive view of Hinduism and "Krishna consciousness," and i rather suspect that you are a devotee who suspends his disbelief with regard to Krishna in a manner which is not the case when you consider other religious texts.
And who really knows what jewish theology operates with. Isn't that a secret only the initiated get to share? Isn't that part of why jews have been so persecuted through time? At least that's what I've been taught.
Then you have been misinformed. The entire history of Talmudic scholarship is devoted to elucidating Jewish theology. Although Talmud is a less than comprehensive term for all of the writings through which rabbinic scholars have discussed the law and the Torah over the centuries, it will do as an avatar for Jewish theological study. Whoever "taught" you that was either ignorant, or willfully indulging in deception. It is entirely possible that anyone knowingly peddling those lies is antisemitic.
As for Constantine being a christian, I have never heard of any evidence that he was. He was a pagan, but in the interest of maintaining his rule he backed the side that appeared to be gaining followers, simply to please the mob and keep the peace.
Whereas i agree that Constantine convened the Nicean Council to "keep the peace," it would be wrong to suggest that there ever were any mob in Anatolia, Syria, Palestine and North Africa which he needed to please. It would not have been in character for him, either, given the military means by which he eventually placed himself on an imperial throne. I agree, of course, that there is no evidence that he were a christian.