Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, you Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone."
Also Isaiah 45:12, "It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it, I stretched out the heavens with My hands, And I ordained all their host." This is pretty clear language so how is it to be reconciled with Jesus being identified as the creator?
John 1:3, "All things came into being by Him, and apart (or without Him) nothing came into being that has come into being." Colossians 1:15, "For by Him all things were created, both in the in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones-all things have been created by Him and for Him."
Even God the Father stated, "And, Thou, Lord in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands." (Hebrews 1:10). One more, Revelation 3:14, "And to the angel in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God says this."
So to summarize, we have God saying He created the heavens and earth all alone and by Himself. We also have Jesus being identified or presented as the creator and without Him nothing has come into being that has come into being. (John 1:3). It must also be concluded based on these facts that Jesus Christ must have existed before His incarnation as a man.
I have to add an addendum to properly reply to those who "posit" only the Father is the one true God. Why do some of you keep trying to make "the Father" the ONLY reference to "God," when it is a term clearly employed throughout the New Testament to distinguish the Father in His "God-ness" from the Son in HIS same "God-ness" and the Holy Spirit from his self-same "God-ness."
If "the Father" alone is God, there would be no need to distinguish Him as "the Father" and one would ONLY see the same continued metaphorical applications of that term. But you don't; God is NEVER ONCE identified as "the Father" in the Old Testament (other than in a collective and metaphorical sense).
He is constantly so distinguished in the New Testament. So why bother making the distinction if there is no distinction to be made? And yes, I read the reference at Deuteronomy 32:5. The point of the verse was to show how the people were so ungrateful and rebellious towards God that they did not appreciate the fact that they owed their existence and well-being to Him.
The Father of Christ is God. That is why Christ is God - He is the Son of God - who, like all sons bears the full ontological nature of His Father. If this is not so than the Bible is a lie or at best an incredibly bad case of special pleading requiring that in this ONE instance in all of the universe a son actually does NOT bear the full nature of His own Father.