Was Jesus the historical figure likely a supporter of what he is now almost inseparably associated with, his own divinity (and equal divinity to the Father as one of 3 divine persons) and the trinity? What other points of common doctrine may be of dubious relation to the founder of Christianity himself?
There is a serious methodological flaw inherent in the question as you have framed it. Trinitarianism is a theological construct designed to provide a way of understanding what the Bible says about the nature of God, and the relationship between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
I work mainly in 4th century trinitarian debates, so even though you have said "void of theological traditions", let me say that that is the field I'm working in. Now, the problem is there is no way to answer this question meaningfully "void of theological traditions". What are those theological traditions trying to do? In general, they are trying to make sense of the Bible as a set of given data. I.e., given the Bible, how do we understand what it says about God.
Your question is aimed at retro-engineering this process in a way that could only ever impose a theological grid on the Bible that is not native to its primary contexts. So you will never find, for example, 4th Century Classical Trinitarianism on the lips of Jesus, because it's the development of Greek-language-theologising for hundreds of years and an intense polemical context, while Jesus is a first century Jew. So I would never expect to find Jesus making statements like "I and the Father are two hypostaseis but one ousia."
Neither will you find any other theological formulation in this manner, its dangerously anachronistic to do history in this way.
Better questions worth asking are, "In relation to what we know of first century Judaism and its parallels, and the earliest Christian writings, what statements does Jesus make about his relationship with God and what frameworks exist for making sense of it? What claims does he make according to the NT corpus?"
Then one might engage theological traditions, and ask, "How do certain theologians or traditions understand this data, is their reading and interpretation accurate to their texts, what are their interpretative strategies, how do they differ from 1st century strategies and methods of reading and theologising?"
A far simpler set of questions would be, "According to the NT portrayal, did Jesus claim to be God? How would such a claim be understood by his contemporaries? How was it understood by his first followers?"