And yet, a number of scholars who have applied the historical-critical method to the data have drawn this conclusion that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet.  I'm not arguing from authority that they're right, but I think it's wrong headed to suggest that they're all naïve.  They have some good arguments.  The methodology is based on treating the Bible as they would any other historical documents, which obviously means leaving Christian assumptions at the door.  They employ the historical method in their analysis (source criticism, external and internal criticism, and historical reasoning).  This considers the genre, and the implications of the genre.  It considers literary relationships between the Gospels, the historical and cultural environment in which they were written. It considers the authorship (what can we surmise about the authors?), how the authors beliefs would influence the content, and the likely dates of the writings.   Like any historical document, it contains data of varying degrees of reliability and attempts to sort that out. History is not an exact science, but it does the best it can with the data that is available.

Christians tend to treat the Gospels as veridical history, and interpret them through their faith.  This is fine for Christians qua Christians, but it's not pure history – it's apologetics, or (at best) an apologetic history.    

The Op lists a set of hypotheses that have been developed by these critical scholars.  It's easy to dismiss  everything in the list with a brief comment, since they're merely the intermediate conclusions and the arguments behind them are unstated.  I'll just point out that you've done so by raising objections that seem rooted in your Christian beliefs.  For example, when you say " a more accurate view is that he believed that a major eschaton-like transformative event was in the works. That's what repent and believe the Good News is about. It meant individual by individual would become transformed and this mustard seed would spread to bring about the end."

You "know" what the Good News is about, but what you "know" may not be based on the best explanation of the material in the Bible, but instead be based on the assumptions you are taught to believe as a Christain.    

I don't know how you can be so certain about the motivations of the "exapologist" who outlined the points in the OP, but regardless – he didn't make up these items, he's just summarizing the works of some historical-critical scholars.   It is their arguments that are pertinent. 

Regarding Thomas: this was a later Gospel used be a group of Gnostics, who appear to have embraced some of Jesus' teaching.  Being written in the 2^nd century, it shouldn't be surprising that they wouldn't deal with an imminent apocalypse. Regarding the Q Gospel, it's quite consistent with an apocalyptic hypothesis, for example:

"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.   21  "Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. "Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.   22  "Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man.   23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets.   24  "But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.   25  "Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. "Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep.  

When will these things occur?  When the Son of Man arrives, and the Kingdom of God is established on earth and the forces of evil will be overcome.

Why would you expect each theory to account for each alternative theory?  Each theory has to account for the evidence.  The question is which theory provides the best explanation of the evidence.  Formulators of theories obviously feel theirs is the best, and they sometimes do compare their theories to others to make their case.

What is naïve about applying the historical method to the data?  Different theories come out of it because there's not much data to go on.  Consequently, any broad theory is built from layers of hypotheses.  Each hypothesis is an opportunity for error.  . E.P. Sanders describes the process in an intellectually honest manner:

Sanders proceeds to describe the process that entails developing historical hypotheses from the “most secure” evidence, and then adding additional layers of hypothesis from this foundation. Even the “most secure” evidence is somewhat tenuous, but each subsequent layer becomes increasingly so because it depends on more and more speculation, educated guesses based on the hypotheses of the previous layer. (Taken from E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism).

I'm fine with dismissing the blogger; he's not making an argument – just making a statement.  I'm just not fine with dismissing the scholars who's work he is quoting. 

An independent connection is plausible, but your original comment about Q was unwarranted, when you said,  "One main problem for him is that the Q and Thomas community kept the words of Jesus without any eschatological references." 

The lack of eschatological reference in Thomas tells us more about the Christians who wrote and used it than about Jesus. 

You're misinterpreting Crossan regarding Q.  He agrees the references to the kingdom are eschatological, where he differs (subtly) is in the type of eschatology that he believes is revealed. In this book, he's primarily discussing early Christianity, not primarily Jesus.  Crossan observes that various eschatologies are present in early Christianity.  In his earlier book, Excavating Jesus,he deals more directly with Jesus.  On page 174, he says:

So I don't really think Crossan rejects the notion of Jesus as an apocalypticist so much as he wants to clarify something more specific about the message he was conveying.