Lastly again the poem is also a fiction written on some other fiction. Fiction will assume characters to be real and write accordingly. The poem also says about talking to owls but we know its a fiction and hence all these things are taken for granted.
The talking owl is in itself part of the "Winnie the Pooh "story.
The writer of the poem obviously knows that Winnie the Pooh and Christopher Robin are fictional. That is not the point he is a real person referring in a fictional person using the exact phrase you say nobody would use.
The only thing that is different is the purpose of the text. Jesus used an analogy to teach something else, the writer of the poem did not want to teach but to entertain. The poem itself cannot be classed a fiction has it does not tell a story of its own as such it expresses a feeling or a view.
Where does it say that yore is used to refer to imaginary past ?
Have you never heard the phrase used? The link says is about things "remembered nostalgically", i.e. loosely based on the real past but idealised. It also is used to take the mickey out of people who yearn for a dream world from the past. It is closely linked with Arthur and round table.
As to "golden ages" are you saying the "golden age" of Islam was real, wonderful period?
Its interesting that Jesus knew only what people at that time knew, nothing more. He is sitting among his buddies discussing stories from past, from OT and using them as examples with out making a single correction to them. Talking about Noah , talking about Adam and eve.
What precisely Jesus knew about neither of us are privy to. And yes, he uses the stories as a tool for teaching. I fail to see the problem. I used my watch to teach the Aristotelian concept of "idea", "Nathan the Wise" to teach about tolerance, or a story about a lighthouse to teach about focus and perseverance, and I have seen a wonderful class about growing up and falling in love where the teacher used "the little mermaid" story from Anderson. He didn't explain at all that "the little mermaid" was fiction nor did he give details about the background of the tale. Why not? It simply didn't matter.
For the hundredth time, Jesus MAY have believed in a historical Noah, Adam, Job or Jonah, he would not have been the only one, it was seen in that way by many at the time. It really makes no difference to what he taught. He may have simply gone along with what people believed at the time. He may have used a figure of speech. All these are possible, and it really makes very little difference.
Here is what Jesus did NOT teach: "You must believe the literal description of Noah's flood in genesis." He really had more important things to talk about.
Whatever next, he cannot be "God" because he never mentioned facebook?
It is however a legitimate theological question to ask if Jesus as a man was omniscient. The answer to that is you could not be fully human if you were. In SOME aspects we could say that the bible claims Jesus has divine-like knowledge, i.e. in questions about religion, the human condition and moral judgement. In other questions, such as history or science, the bible makes no such claim, and neither does the church.
Jesus said he did not know the time of judgement day, so he did, by his own words, not know "everything" as a man. What EXACTLY he knew really is a futile speculation.