Haightova tvrdnja da je Isus simbol Božji u središtu je njegove kristologije koja, generičkom metodom kritičke korelacije i konverzacije, treba unutar kristološkog pluralizma novozavjetnih kristologija najbolje prenijeti središnju poruku za postmoderno vrijeme, da je Isus svojim simboličkim spasenjskim posredovanjem Božje prisutnosti donositelj Božjeg spasenja. Tu poruku moguće je prenijeti postmodernoj kulturi po reinterpretaciji temeljnih kršćanskih religioznih simbola koji bi bili razumljivi i smisleni u njezinom kulturnom kontekstu, a kojom bi se izbjegao tradicionalizam ili fundamentalizam, te radikalni liberalizam s krajnjim ciljem da vjera preuzme oblik kulture u kojoj se implementira. U isto vrijeme, ta reinterpretacija trebala bi ostati vjerna tradiciji i osnažiti vjernički život kršćanske zajednice. Cilj rada je prezentacija, analiza i kritičko vrednovanje značenja religioznog simbola u Haightovoj teologiji, a napose identifikacije Isusa kao Božjeg simbola kroz čiju se dijalektičku strukturu izražava njegovo bogočovještvo. Preferirajući pneumatološku kristologiju koja izbjegava hipostatizaciju Boga kao Riječi u ivanovskoj Logos kristologiji i omogućuje adekvatnije izricanje Božjeg djelovanja u svijetu kroz simbol Boga kao Duha, Haight u svojoj kristologiji polazi "odozdo" od egzistencijalno-povijesnog Isusa iz Nazareta koji je dostupan svih ljudima kroz iskustvo Isusa kao individualne i partikularne ljudske osobe, koja kao religiozni simbol posreduje Božju spasenjsku prisutnost. U tom smislu, Haight želi reinterpretirati Nicejsko i Kalcedonski nauk na način da je Isus bio ljudska osoba s integralnom ljudskom naravi, u kojem je "nitko manji od Boga", dakle, božanska narav, bio na djelu. Prenaglašavanjem simbolizma u Isusovom spasenjskom posredništvu (jer simbol posreduje nešto različito od sebe) i njegove dijalektičke strukture (da se u isto vrijeme može tvrditi da Isus jest i nije Bog), Haight pokazuje samo soteriološki interes, bez ontološkoga kristološkog pitanja, tko je Isus u sebi i u odnosu prema Bogu. Njegov pokušaj odgovora svodi se na kvantitativno razlikovanje Božje prisutnosti u Isusu i drugim ljudima, gdje je Bog bio na superlativan način prisutan u Isusu, a da istovremeno, uz jasno potvrđivanje Isusova čovještva i konsupstancijalnosti s ljudima, izostaje izravno afirmiranje njegove božanske naravi. Razdvajanje soteriologije od kristologije ima za posljedicu to da kristocentrizam ustupa mjesto Haightovom teocentrizmu koji omogućuje druga i jednako valjana spasenjska posredovanja izvan Krista i kršćanstva, što ponovno afirmira "deiktičku" teoriju božanskog posredovanja, bez jasne identifikacije Riječi s jedinim istinskim Bogom. Haight's claim that Jesus is a symbol of God is the focal point of his christology (uncapitalized throughout his works). Through the genetic method of critical correlation and conversation, within the christological pluralism of New Testament christologies, Haight conveys his central message for the postmodern period that Jesus is the bearer of God's salvation by his symbolical salvific mediation of God's presence. This message can be conveyed to the postmodern culture by reinterpreting the fundamental Christian religious symbols, which should be intelligible in the cultural context in order to avoid traditionalism, fundamentalism and radical liberalism, with the ultimate goal for faith to assume the form of the culture in which it is implemented. At the same time, such reinterpretation must remain faithful to tradition and strengthen the life of the Christian community. The objective of this dissertation is to present, analyze and critically assess the meaning of religious symbols in Haight's theology, especially the identification of Jesus as God's symbol, whose divinity and humanity are expressed through his dialectical structure. Preferring Spirit christology that avoids the hypostatization of God as Word in Johannine Logos christology, in order to express God's activity in the world through the symbol of God as Spirit, Haight begins from "below" in his christology, from the existentialhistorical Jesus of Nazareth, who is accessible to all people through their experience of Him as an individual and particular human person, who mediates God's salvific presence as a religious symbol. Although Haight claims to accept Nicaea and Chalcedon, professing that Jesus was a human person with an integral human nature in whom "no less than God," divine nature was at work, his reinterpretation of the Councils significantly alters the meaning. Overemphasizing symbolism in Jesus' salvific mediation (a symbol mediates something other than itself) and its dialectical structure (so that at the same time it is possible to say that Jesus is and is not God), Haight demonstrates merely a soteriological concern without asking the ontological christological question of who Jesus is in himself and in relation to God. Haight’s attempt to answer the christological question boils down to a quantitative differentiation of God's presence to Jesus and to other people, wherein God was present to Jesus in a superlative manner. Haight clearly confirms Jesus' humanity and consubstantiality with other human persons but there is no direct affirmation of Jesus' divine nature. The separation of soteriology from christology results in christocentrism being replaced by Haight's version of theocentrism, which allows for other and equally valid salvific mediations without Christ and outside Christianity, thereby reaffirming the old deictic theory of divine mediation without the clear identification of the Word as the only one and true God.