I say:

The third view is equivalent in meaning to the second, but assigns two meanings to His words, “Nor do you worship what I worship”: one occurrence means “what I have worshipped,” and the other means “what I worship.” This makes them correspond to His words addressed to them: “I do not worship what you worship” and “Nor am I a worshipper of what you have worshipped.” Thus, just as he disavowed worshipping, in the present and future, what they worshipped in the past and worship in the present, he likewise declared that they did not worship what he worships in the present and future. However, the wording referring to them was expressed in the past tense.

Those who hold this view said: “The expression ‘what I have worshipped’ was not used in his case, to indicate that what he worshipped in the past is what he worships in the future.”

I say:

The proponents of this view sought correspondence, as explained above. But if “what you have worshipped” refers to the past, as does “what I worship” in one of its two occurrences, then, according to their explanation, the full meaning would be: “Nor will I worship in the future what you worshipped in the past.” He would thus have denied that he would worship in the future what they worshipped in the past, without denying that he would worship what they worship in the future.

Likewise, if “Nor do you worship what I worship” means what was worshipped in the past, then whether their worship is understood as present or future, it only negates worship of what they worshipped in the past. This detracts from the meaning of the verse. How could he disavow worshipping in the future only what they worshipped in the past? And likewise in their case?