But the concept of an invisible spirit, which leaves your body upon death, (or is created by an omnipotent being upon death), is the commonality.
Spirits are spirits, be they called souls, vapours, spirits, or what not. And everyone believed in life after death, in the spiritual form.
Speaking of rejection, Agatha Christie was so deeply devoted to the Tridentine form of the Catholic Mass, that she signed a petition that resulted in Papal permission to extend celebrations of this Mass beyond the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. That permission became known as the Agatha Christie Indult.
Of course Christianity rejects ALL other forms of irrational belief. And so do all other "true" religions.
Buddhism is relatively cool however, it focuses on how we can alleviate suffering of living beings, not of spirits.
Mere Christianity by Lewis is a pretty good introduction to the idea, as is Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton.
The church selected the relevant books, written by many authors over 1000 years. While some evangelical sects may claim internal consistency, it's mostly a straw man. The sources/purposes of the relevant books explain most inconsistencies already (namely that most Jewish law doesn't apply to gentiles, because Jesus was a new covenant with all peoples.)
Gospel harmonies deal with the biggest hole: The gospels don't have any reason to be inconsistent. But that's easy to respond to too: They were written in response to other writings, each other and popular ideas, in dialogue with each other, just as the "historical" books etc. or modern history books and internet comments are made in dialogue with each other. Christians say this approaches truth, where the order of events of Jesus' thorning are less relevant than his message of love etc.
This lens leads to many interesting readings, e.g. the bible can be seen as a vengeful god killing off other gods (by his chosen people killing worshipers of other gods) and then learning to be nice and instead choosing all peoples.