Well why doesn't one english translation add then to it! And if then is correct- then is not connecting it to the banquets the pharisee held in his house and teh great crowds following Jesus!
Congratulations; you have discovered the specter that hides behind every attempt to translate.
That word is translated "then"; it's just not translated "then" in any of the English translations of that particular verse. The most common words used in that verse are: "and" & "now". And they are at the beginning of the sentence because the Greek word order is different from the English word order and if you read it word for word strait translation, it doesn't read very well in English.
You could insert "then" though and it would still make contextual sense. (This happened "then" that happened.)
And here's another good piece of information to know about how the Bible is written. It behooves readers to pay close attention to detail because there's a lot of information there. And here's another clue as to answering your objection about the events being connected together.
You are correct that chapter / verse designations are added later. That's not part of the original way it was written. In the Old Testament, this becomes more of an obvious challenge because Hebrew doesn't have capital letters (it's all capital letters) or punctuation. Also, having been written in scroll format; to find the "chapter divider" you'd have to look for breaks in the way the text was laid out on the scroll. Hebrew sentences ended with a space that was bigger than the space between the words.
New Testament Greek though is set up more like modern western languages and did have capital letters. Capital letters marked the beginning of the next sentence. Also, the new testament was not written in scroll form (you probably already know this) it was written in page / letter form. So in the Greek, groups of text that were intended to go together are usually "lumped" together.
Your most common leader into the next "lump" of texts is usually: "And it came to pass....". You also see "time markers": "Three days before the Passover....", "On the next sabbath...." Those are the most frequent types of "text breaks" that let you know time has passed between what you just read and what you are about to read.
Luke 14:
Now chapter 14 leads in with an: "It came to pass..." and we don't see another "And it came to pass..." until we get to verse 11 of chapter 17. Now what precedes between 14 and 17 is pretty much just a string of parables.
So were all these parables spoken in the same day? That's absolutely plausible and we can see this based on the unfolding of the accounts in the text.
We start in chapter 14; it's the sabbath and Jesus is invited to a pharisee's house. And it's not just any old pharisee. The text describes it as "a chief Pharisee".
So Jesus is walking and there are crowds following Him. We know He's going to this pharisee's house. It appears that Jesus gets to the house; then someone with dropsy is introduced into the story line. Jesus asks the pharisees: "Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?" They don't answer. Jesus heals this man and "lets him go".
Now knowing this whole pharisee issue; do you think it's plausible that they invited a man with dropsy to their dinner? (Not likely.)
They all got nothing to say and Jesus begins to speak a parable to them as He's observing how they are beginning to arrange themselves regarding the rooms in the house. Were there multiple entrances? Important people go here, less important people go there. That's possible because the beginning of verse seven tells us Jesus "speaks a parable to those who were bidden". Now would it make contextual sense to state "to those who were bidden" if only "those who were bidden" were present?
Here is an example of the importance of paying attention to little details like this.
Jesus precedes with this parable about a wedding feast. The next verse (12) "Then said He also to him who bade Him......" Now look at the next parable! What is it about? (Again, these little details are important.) Jesus starts talking about inviting people who can't pay you back.
Now ask yourself; what would be the point of Jesus presenting this parable to a group of pharisees that he's "alone" in this house with? Remember these guys were out to get Him. Would you go into a house with a group of guys who you knew wanted to kill you? (Not likely.)
Verse 15:
In a prior verse; I talked about verse 15. (Greek order) - Having heard then one of those reclining with (them), he said to him: Blessed is he who will eat bread in the kingdom of God.
"reclining with them" is a verb, present participle middle or passive voice. Genitive masculine
Plural (here is another detail to pay attention to). "Them" is supplied by context because the verb is plural; even though the actual word "them" is not in the text. All English translations that i've looked at translate this "him"; yet because the verb is plural, it would be more accurately translated "them".
"Having heard then one..." - We have two things here: "having heard" and our previously discussed connective conjunction "then". "Having heard" is translated as such because the verb "heard" has an adjective attached to it which denotes the one who is performing the action of the verb. This is why it's translated "having heard". It's also aorist participle active - which means the "hearing" is not rooted in a specific time. Compare this to aorist subjective active which indicates the main verb is occurring at the time the speaker is speaking.
So therefore we can conclude that "Having heard then....." is not in the immediate time vicinity of the parable stated by Jesus. The person making the statement "Blessed is he who will eat bread in the kingdom of God" is not making it in direct time response of the parable Jesus just set forth. It's likely this parable was reported through a 3rd party to the person who makes this statement.
This would give explanation to the odd verb tenses used in "Having heard then one...."
The word "heard" here is interesting too; because it is where we get our word "acoustic" from. It is an add on to the base of "hear" which means "to lend ear" to or "pay attention" to. The base word is usually in connotation to spiritual hearing and not just the literal act of hearing with the ears. The base word means to absorb and internalize what is said. This word here though "Having heard then..." is more a kin to "having heard about", "messaged back", "reported to".
From here, let's take a look at Jesus's response:
"But He said to him...." The word "said" here is Strong's #2036. It's meaning is given as "answer", "bid", "bring word" or "command". It's a primary verb, used only in definitive past tense. It means to speak or say by word or writing.
Strong's Greek: 2036ἔπω () -- answer, bid, bring word, command
Now you had relayed to me in an earlier post that the pharisees would investigate people who claimed to be the messiah. Taking for granted that is true (I don't see why it would not be.) And you apparently holding an interest in investigating Jewish culture; might be able to shed some light on the rest of what I'm about to say, in regards to "pharisee investigations of messianic claims".
We know from Scripture that when Nicodemus came to Jesus; Nicodemus makes a very interesting statement. He says: "We know you are of God, because no one could do the things that you do unless God was with him."
Note the word "we". Nicodemus, as a member of the council (speaking for the council) says "we". This tells us that they knew
EXACTLY who Jesus was. They knew He was the Messiah with a capital "M".
Now take that information into this invitation to this chief pharisee's house. They know He's the Messiah; yet who comes to invite Him to the house? We know it's not the one who makes this statement "Blessed is he who will eat bread in the Kingdom of God". The person who made that statement was probably this chief pharisee.
So here's the scenario. The "pope" of Judaism invites the Messiah to his "Vatican". And he sends a local parish priest to go invite Him. And when he gets to the "Vatican", He's directed to go around the back of St. Peter's Basilica through the basement door.
LOL
Note the parable Jesus gives in direct response to His observation of people's behavior in the house. He talks about a "wedding". Now think about that a minute. Who's the "bride groom"?
Now considering that; look at the content of the 1st parable. He says: Don't take the highest seats lest one who is more honorable be invited and you have to move to the lowest seat. Take the lowest seat and wait to be moved up accordingly that you would be praised in the eyes of others. Who is the "host"? (The bride groom). Jesus is actually the one "throwing the wedding" and all these people have usurped His place of honor!
That's what that parable is about.
Now go from there to the second parable. The one about inviting the poor, blind and maimed. Invite those who can't pay you back.
And AFTER this parable; says this person to Him: "Blessed is he who will eat in the kingdom of God." Then in response comes the 3rd parable. And that parable is about those who've made excuses, so the Master tells the servants, go into the streets and highways and countryside and collect whom ever you can.
Chapter 15:
Now here's where it gets REALLY interesting.
Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.
And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receives sinners,
and eats with them.
To this, Jesus issues more parables. The fist is about finding lost sheep. The second is about the woman who found a lost coin and the third is the prodigal son.
Now chapter 16, Jesus is talking to the disciples. Probably the end of the day; the sabbath is over. It was a busy day... etc.
Now all that I got from just studying the text itself. None of it was from "studying the culture". Not that I think it would not be useful to know some of the cultural stuff. I do look at the history too; although I know more about Roman culture than Jewish culture. Studying the culture though is not necessary to understanding the Bible.
And I have not seen you state that you do not believe that hate does not mean loathe or detest. If you did I missed it! There have been many lengthy answers here and other threrads, so it is possible I missed you recanting that Jesus was saying you had to loathe and detest your family (as it is biblically defined) in order to be His disciple.
This one too; you have to go back and look at the entirety of how to interpret this using Scripture. What is "hate" Biblically defined?
I'm sure you know the verse: The wrath of man does not accomplish the righteousness of God. Scripturally, we have "hate" on two different paradigms. We have the wrath of man and we have the wrath of God. One is usually driven by sin and the other is driven by righteousness.
Can humans have legitimate righteous anger? Yes they can. Now that doesn't mean that human righteous anger isn't clouded by sin also. Yet like that word "hate" entails a choice made based on a moral standing. Forsaking one's family in a moral standing, does not automatically equate to sinful vengeance.
Psalm 139:22 - "I hate them with a perfect hatred and I count them my enemies." That's a Messianic psalm. How did Jesus hate His enemies with a perfect hatred? Are you able to grasp the concept of that? Jesus hating someone with a perfect hatred. If you look in the gospels you will see some of this. There was more than one pharisee who was on the receiving end of some not so pretty inditements!
So what does it mean to "hate" (loath or detest) on moral grounds? Be ye holy as I am holy. Does Holy God never get angry? Does Holy God never acknowledge when something is really ... FUBR? I know you understand there are people God hates. There are people who will come under His wrath. So when Jesus says to hate your parents, kids, spouse EVEN YOUR OWN LIFE! What do you suppose that would look like in the context of making a decision based on a moral standing?
Why would He be? LOL - I got nothing holy God would ever want or need. 
