1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica,:

where was a synagogue of the Jews:  2 and Paul, as his custom was, went in unto them, and for three sabbath days reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
 3 opening and alleging that it behooved the Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom, said he, I proclaim unto you, is the Christ.

 4 And some of them were persuaded, and consorted with Paul and Silas, and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
 5 But the Jews, being moved with jealousy, took unto them certain vile fellows of the rabble, and gathering a crowd, set the city on an uproar; and assaulting the house of Jason, they sought to bring them forth to the people.
 6 And when they found them not, they dragged Jason and certain brethren before the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
 7 whom Jason hath received: and these all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.
 8 And they troubled the multitude and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.
 9 And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.
 10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Beroea: who when they were come thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.
 12 Many of them therefore believed; also of the Greek women of honorable estate, and of men, not a few.
 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was proclaimed of Paul at Beroea also, they came thither likewise, stirring up and troubling the multitudes.
 14 And then immediately the brethren sent forth Paul to go as far as to the sea: and Silas and Timothy abode there still.

 15 But they that conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens: and receiving a commandment unto Silas and Timothy that they should come to him with all speed, they departed.

 16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he beheld the city full of idols.
 17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with them that met him.

 18 And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, What would this babbler say? others, He seemed to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took hold of him, and brought him unto the Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new teaching is, which is spoken by thee?
 20 For you bring certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.
 21 (Now all the Athenians and the strangers sojourning there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing.)

The Areopagus or Areios Pagos (Greek: Άρειος Πάγος) is the 'Rock of Ares', north-west of the Acropolis, which in classical times functioned as the high Court of Appeal for criminal and civil cases[1] in Athens. Ares was supposed to have been tried here by the gods for the murder of Poseidon's son Alirrothios (a typical example of an aetiological myth). In The Eumenides of Aeschylus (458 BC), the Areopagus is the site of the trial of Orestes for killing his mother (Clytemnestra) and her lover (Aegisthus).

Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of Epicurus, founded around 307 BC. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention. Following Aristippus—about whom very little is known—Epicurus believed that the greatest good was to seek modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquility (ataraxia) and freedom from fear, as well as absence of bodily pain (aponia) through knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of one's desires. The combination of these two states is supposed to constitute happiness in its highest form. Epicureanism declares pleasure as the sole intrinsic good, its conception of absence of pain as the greatest pleasure and its advocacy of a simple life make it different from "hedonism" as it is commonly understood.

In the Epicurean view, the highest pleasure (tranquility and freedom from fear) was obtained by knowledge, friendship and living a virtuous and temperate life. He lauded the enjoyment of simple pleasures, by which he meant abstaining from bodily desires, such as sex and appetites, verging on asceticism. He argued that when eating, one should not eat too richly, for it could lead to dissatisfaction later, such as the grim realization that one could not afford such delicacies in the future. Likewise, sex could lead to increased lust and dissatisfaction with the sexual partner. Epicurus did not articulate a broad system of social morality that has survived.

Epicureanism emphasizes the neutrality of the gods, that they do not interfere with human lives. It states that gods, matter, and souls are all made up of atoms. Souls are made from atoms, and gods possess souls, but their souls adhere to their bodies without escaping. Humans have the same kind of souls, but the forces binding human atoms together do not hold the soul forever. The Epicureans also used the atomist theories of Democritus and Leucippus to assert that man has free will. They held that all thoughts are merely atoms swerving randomly. This explanation served to satisfy people who wondered anxiously about their role in the universe.

The Riddle of Epicurus, or Problem of evil, is a famous argument against the existence of an all-powerful and providential God or gods. As recorded by Lactantius:

God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, then he is weak - and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful - which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful, and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?

—[1]

This type of trilemma argument (God is omnipotent, God is good, but Evil exists) was one favoured by the ancient Greek skeptics, and this argument may have been wrongly attributed to Epicurus by Lactantius, who, from his Christian perspective, regarded Epicurus as an atheist.[2] According to Reinhold F. Glei, it is settled that the argument of theodicy is from an academical source which is not only not epicurean, but even anti-epicurean.[3] The earliest extant version of this trilemma appears in the writings of the skeptic Sextus Empiricus.[4]

Epicurus' view was that there were gods, but that they were neither willing nor able to prevent evil. This was not because they were malevolent, but because they lived in a perfect state of ataraxia, a state everyone should strive to emulate; it is not the gods who are upset by evils, but people.[2] Epicurus conceived the gods as blissful and immortal yet material beings made of atoms inhabiting the metakosmia: empty spaces between worlds in the vastness of infinite space. In spite of his recognition of the gods, the practical effect of this materialistic explanation of the gods' existence and their complete non-intervention in human affairs renders his philosophy akin in divine effects to the attitude of Deism.

In Dante's Divine Comedy, the flaming tombs of the Epicureans are located within the sixth circle of hell (Inferno, Canto X). They are the first heretics seen and appear to represent the ultimate, if not quintessential, heresy.[5] Similarly, according to Jewish Mishnah, Epicureans (apiqorsim, people who share the beliefs of the movement) are among the people who do not have a share of the "World-to-Come" (afterlife or the world of the Messianic era).

Parallels may be drawn to Buddhism, which similarly emphasizes a lack of divine interference and aspects of its atomism. Buddhism also resembles Epicureanism in its temperateness, including the belief that great excesses lead to great dissatisfaction.

The Stoic philosophers, mentioned in verse 18 as one party with whom Paul discourses, taught that Zeus is not a god in the form of a human being but a force which permeates all animate and inanimate things. This guiding principle, which unites all living things into one cosmos, they called Reason (Logos). Zeus, the Stoics believed, was not an immortal being, but a power without person. Accordingly Paul could be confident that these philosophers would concur with his statement that "God does not live in shrines made by man" (24). Paul tells the Athenians that God does not live in a dwelling as humans do, and that He cannot be represented in the form of man. The terminology which Paul employs in this verse is similar to that used by the Stoics, yet one should not conclude that Paul is preaching a purely Stoic philosophy. (2) One need only glance at Isaiah 42:5 and Exodus 20:11 to see that Paul's depiction of God the Creator is thoroughly biblical. He merely uses the same language that the Stoics use in their description of the Zeus they believe controls the universe. The Stoics were correct in decrying the numerous temples, altars and statues in Athens. To support his position Paul quotes an authority the Athenian thinkers must have known: the Hellenistic poet Aratus. (3) Paul alludes to Aratus to convince his audience that God cannot be represented "by the art and imagination of man" (17:29).

 22 And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus, and said, You men of Athens, in all things, I perceive that ye are very religious.
 23 For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this I set forth unto you.
 24 The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
 25 neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
 26 and he made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation;
 27 that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us:
 28 for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man.
 30 The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent:
 31 inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

(See CK Barnet for the exact quote from Cleanthes)

When Paul says "as even some of your poets have said" he reveals his learning, for the sentiment that mankind is the offspring of Zeus was expressed also by Cleanthes, another Hellenistic poet, in his Hymn to Zeus, line 4. The half-line quoted, however, comes from Aratus' poem. Recently M.J. Edwards, "Quoting Aratus," Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 83, 1992, 266-269, plausibly argued that Paul's direct source was Aristobulus, a second century B.C. Jew who cites the opening lines óf the Phaenomena.

On the face of it, the characteristics of transcendence and immanence appear to be in conflict. A transcendent God is one who is beyond perception, independent of the universe, and wholly “other” when compared to us. An immanent God, is one which exists within — within us, within the universe, etc. — and, hence, very much a part of our existence. How can these qualities exist simultaneously?

The idea of a transcendent God has roots both in Judaism and in Neoplatonic philosophy. The Old Testament, for example, records a prohibition against idols and this can be interpreted as an attempt to emphasize the wholly “otherness” of God which cannot be represented physically. Neoplatonic philosophy, in a similar manner, emphasized the idea that God is so pure and perfect that it completely transcended all of our categories, ideas, and concepts.

The idea of an immanent God can also be traced to both Judaism and Greek philosophers. The stories of the Old Testament depict a God who is very active in human affairs and the working of the universe. Christians, especially mystics, have often described a God who works within them and whose presence they can perceive immediately and personally. Philosophers have also discussed the idea of a God who is somehow united with our souls, such that this union can be understood and perceived by those who study and learn enough.

The idea of God being transcendent is very common when it comes to the mystical traditions within various religions. Mystics who seek a union or at least contact with God are seeking a transcendent God — a God so totally “other” and so totally different from what we normally experience that a special mode of experience and perception is required.

Such a God is not immanent in our normal lives, otherwise mystical training and mystical experiences would not be necessary to learn about God. In fact, the mystical experiences are themselves generally described as “transcendent” and not amenable to the normal categories of thought and language which would allow those experiences to be communicated to others.

Clearly there is some conflict between these two characteristics. The more God’s transcendence is emphasized the less God’s immanence can be understood and vice-versa. For this reason, many philosophers have tried to downplay or even deny one attribute or the other. Kierkegaard, for example, focused primarily upon God’s transcendence and rejected God’s

immanence — this has been a common position for many modern theologians.

Moving in the other direction we find Protestant theologian Paul Tillich and those who have followed his example in describing God as our “ultimate concern,” such that we could not “know” God without “participating in” God. This is a very immanent God whose transcendence is ignored entirely — if, indeed, such a God can be described as transcendent at all.

The need for both qualities can be seen in the other characteristics normally attributed to God. If God is a person and works within human history, then it would make little sense for us not to be able to perceive and communicate with God. Moreover, if God is infinite, then God must exist everywhere — including within us and within the universe. Such a God must be immanent.

On the other hand, if God is absolutely perfect beyond all experience and understanding, then God must also be transcendent. If God is timeless (outside of time and space) and unchangable, then God cannot also be immanent within us, beings who are within time. Such a God must be wholly “other,” transcendent to everything we know.

Because both of these qualities follow readily from other qualities, it would be very difficult to abandon either without also needing to abandon or at least seriously modify many other common attributes of God. Some theologians and philosophers have been willing to make such a move, but most have not - and the result is a continuation of both of these attributes, constantly in tension.

 32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, We will hear thee concerning this yet again.
 33 Thus Paul went out from among them.
 34 But certain men clave unto him, and believed: among whom also was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.