There are of course two looming problems with the arguments you present
@cgaviria.
Firstly, because you reject or alter canonical Scripture, your appeal to it is dubious; we know of at least two places where you alter it in a manner nit supported by scholarship, and you are also known to have based doctrines on works or rather a part of a work universally regarded as erroneous apocrypha. So when you appeal to scripture, we have no way of knowing whether or not you are appealing to the same scripture we use.
Secondly, and more pressingly, by de-personalizing the Holy Spirit, you appeal to the reception of something ontologocally different from the Holy Spirit described in the Gospels. The Holy Spirit is a person, a prosopon. In reducing Him from a Him to an impersonal force or the indwelling of mere angels, younradically alter the meaning of the concept.
No, our Lord came to restore our tarnished human natjre and to glorify it, allowing human beings to become sons of God by adoption. Being assosted into ceasing to sin is a part of this, it however is not the raison d'etre.
Sin is subtle. Your problem here is that you limit the inclination lf sin to the most obvious outward temptations, ignoring entirely the temptation to vainglory and self-righteousness, which is more dangerous and tends to plague those who have attained some degree of partial ascesis.
If someone boasts of being sinless, we can assert they still are sinful. Whereas someone truly sinless would hesitate to mention the fact.
Indeed, Orthodox hagiography has many examples of the Salios, or Holy Fool. These were exceptional ascetics who "played the part" of madmen to avoid praise for their holiness, to disdain all honour.
