This doctoral thesis provides a systematic demonstration and critical evaluation of John Hick's pluralistic Christology in the context of his understanding of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ as a myth, i. e. metaphor. Hick's approach is a part of his pluralistic legacy which leaves the consequences on his christological thought as well. He considers necessary to reinterpret literal speech, especially that of Chalcedonian doctrine, replacing it with metaphorical one that at the end leaves the ontological question unanswered, and moreover denies it, ruining the idea of Jesus’ divinity and humanity itself. He represents the multiplural incarnation concept, leaving the place for Realitycentrism, which allows legitimate salvific mediations even outside Christianity. Jesus Christ is regarded in the light of monofisism, deprived in deity. Thereby mythological i.e. metaphorical discourse leaded Hick to consider incarnation as approaching divine to people and not as God becoming human that is substantially disparate with the doctrine of Catholic theology. The first chapters of the thesis reconstruct Hick's path to pluralism in general, while the following ones demonstrate clearly incompatible pluralistic hypothesis to the orthodox doctrine of incarnation. Special attention was dedicated to the question of religious language which is the instrument for Hick’s christological interpretation. He sees Christianity as one of many salvific responses to the Real, and for that reason tries to dispute traditional soteriological docrine as well as the incarnational one. His arguments, which attempt to deconstruct the literal understanding of the idea of divine incarnation, are part of his pluralistic views, for, without them, his alternative Christology lacks adequate justification. We evaluated and examined his four arguments (historical, conceptual, soteriological and pragmatic) and have shown that they are not explicated in satisfactory way. Even more, we have shown that Hick’s attempt to deconstruct traditional incarnation Christology by offering a pluralistic one must ultimately be judged a failure. The main reason for such a claim is a lack of proper foundation for reconstructing mythical/metaphorical Christology. The final conclusion of the thesis underlines the characteristics of John Hick’s christological concept, emphasizing the differences between his thought and traditional Christology, and finally evaluating his vision and attempt of creating a radically new Christology for a pluralistic age.