I havent touched a Bible since yesterday since two copies where at my register at WalMart. Otherwise havent touched one since I was 8.

Anyways it was the Romens that called for the crusifixion of Jesus.

on earlier comments.

Calling jesus a Mythological being is wrong.... he's a theological being as his religion is still active. Saying he is a myth is insulting all who believe in him as myth implies nonexistence.
That a man inspired others and had many folowers needs no proving as it still happends often nowadays. This makes existance of a Jesus Character pretty certain... what should be argued is his whether his history is relatively faithfull and the reality of his divine origin.
Do remember that religions have often incorporated the tales of previous ones... However rare are the ones such as christianity and islam that create central figure for the religion that can be put on a time scale with ease. This is to say that these characters are real and not myth, even though their claims of being messia can be doubted.

@Hephaestos: Any sacred story which can be interpreted in multiple ways can be called a myth, in academia myth doesn't mean a false story

I thought the Romans were the ones who did the crucifying, but the Jews were the ones pushing for it. 

 With the Mithraic stories, much of which became practiced in the first century through third centuries AD, around the time that many of the stories of christ were being written finalfan, remeber many stories were written decades, even the next century later, not to mention that the bible underwent revisions around that time as well, incorporating other pagan myths into it.

Also how it spread, well no telephone, no newspaper, no real record keeping, so things passed by word of mouth and since distance made fact checking harder, well rumors could become legend fast, so even the Jews or any other groups couldn't discredit them

Care to explain what revisions were made to the Bible to incorporate more Pagan myths into it?

Wrong.  That's one of the key points that disproves the "New" Testament.  Jews at that time, for a number of reasons, wouldn't have pushed for his execution to begin with (due to when the event supposedly happened, and even more importantly Halacha, Jewish law, which only permits execution for certain things)

Long story short, there is no historical record outside of the New Testament (that was written at least 30 years after J.C.'s death) to backup any claims from the Christian scripture.  And the writing of Josephus confirming anything from the New Testament was long ago scientifically proven to be fraudulent statements added by the Church to give them an historical precidence to verify their claims.

I hardly think someone who knows nothing of halacha could debate such statements, because the very thought of this Jewish mob doesn't fit within the context of such laws.

Then what of Tacitus' acount of Jesus' death by Potious Pilate? Did Tacitus lie too?

 Well constantine, after 312 AD, made significant changes to the Christian religion and had many aspects of the religion altered, blending it with Pagan myths at the time, councils were set up to revise the Bible, and decide which books would be considered acepted by the church and which would not

And since this is an academia discution forum, I guess everybody has an academic understanding of the word?

one of the definitions of myth is "A fictitious story, person, or thing" and that is the one comonly refered to in academic words such as "mythomania"

All i'm saying is, I find the choice of words offensive especially when you  couple it with "I thought you Abrahamics were down with crucifixtion, don't you chrisitians stick pictures of your mythological messiah being crucified everywhere?"