I can't argue, because I have already intuited that an arhat must be determined within emptiness. To go even further I think that it is because of the teaching that this is so. There is no reason to be stuck there, unless in absoluteness. The absoluteness has been deduced to a wrong view, from this perspective. The reason for that is the altering views and "phenomena" have yet to be realized to be able to conclude anything about everything or nothing.
Your understanding of emptiness is not the same as buddhist understanding.
In buddhism, unlike others like Advaita Vedanta, "emptiness" is not "the void" or some kind of "the formless Absolute" or "pure consciousness". That is the I AM.
Instead, emptiness in Buddhism means no self (subjective self or agent) and no true existence of phenomena that dependently originates - a further insight after realizing anatta or no subjective self.
Do not misunderstand and confuse "emptiness" in Buddhism with that in the other religions.