I am curious. He is often shown as the first Roman emperor. But I heard that he was only a life long dictator and that Augustus was the first emperor.
It's not a clear-cut question. There was no one moment that everyone agrees marks the transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire.
Historians have variously proposed Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon River in 49 BC, Caesar's appointment as dictator for life in 44 BC, and the defeat of Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC. However, most use the same date as did the ancient Romans themselves, the Roman Senate's grant of extraordinary powers to Octavian and his adopting the title Augustus in 27 BC, as the defining event ending the Republic.
Most historians today acknowledge Augustus as the first emperor, but a case could also be made for Julius Caesar. Both men acquired near-dictatorial power via military might, while being careful to keep up the facade that Rome was still a Republic. Several early writers, including Josephus and Pliny the Younger, appear to treat Julius Caesar as the first emperor.
This kind of depends on how you define emperor. Julius Caesar was certainly the leader of something that could easily be considered an empire, if that's how you define emperor then yes, he was one.
Nah like you said, he was made dictator for life, but was never crowned empreror, people tried to crown him a couple of times, the crowd cheered but he refused it publicly, the crowd went nuts and cheered even more, IIRC this happened more than once, he refused every time.
This could ofcourse just have been a publicity stunt, but he never took it far enough, maybe if he had lived lover he would have. Either way he is considered the father of the empire, Agustus some how managed to get out of his uncles shadow though and while this ofcourse helped him a it in his career he had a very long and productive reign.