See, you did assumed, if you had read my mind, there wouldn't be a need for clarification.
Look whose talking. You're assuming again. And I explained it to you earlier. I'll explain again as to why I immediately asked the question. Obviously, I asked which part of what I said in my response that led you to assume that I was talking about there being two different pilates because clearly that wasn't what I said. If you would've told me that, I could've clarified your misunderstanding. Or told me what you didn't understand what I said, it would've been clarified.
A story from the mythology of christianity doesn't have enough sufficient evidence to support it, snd we cannot treat it as being historical facts. So until there are such evidence, it remains , as being "untruth" with that being said, a character from the gospels share the same name, but they have different descriptions, so we cannot assume that the character is the historical figure.